The debate over selection and tenure of judges has been ongoing since shortly after the founding of our nation. Although frequently not recognized as such, the debate is, in reality, but one manifestation of a much more fundamental philosophical and political disagreement regarding the role of judges in our political system. This Article first discusses the relationship between judicial theory and choice of a method of judicial selection and retention. It then addresses what each of the principal alternative methods of judicial selection and retention now in use does, and does not, accomplish. Finally, it proposes a compromise method which might prove more likely to satisfy all participants in the debate than does any of the current alternatives.
Back to the Law Review home page