Should We Elect the US Supreme Court

Bibliographic Data

ID6320703
AuthorsMariah Zeisberg (University of Michigan, corresponding author)
Year2009
Volume7
Issue4
Pages785-803
Publication date2009-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePerspectives on Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1537-5927 • E-ISSN: 1541-0986
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1537592709991800
OpenAlexW2156251571
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited67

Extensive political science research reveals that the decisions of the US Supreme Court are deeply political. And both advocates and critics of judicial elections concede that partisan elections are a democratic method of judicial selection. Does the value of democratic representation mean that US Supreme Court Justices should be selected through partisan elections? I argue not. Partisan judicial elections are actually far poorer institutional mechanisms for capturing the judgment of the people on legal matters than has been recognized. The role of parties in structuring a campaign distorts the deliberative environment surrounding judicial elections, creating significant barriers to voters expressing a judgment on matters of legal meaning. The kind of distortion is best understood through reference to aprocessualcriterion of deliberative democracy, which provides a fitting normative template to ground theoretical inquiry into the reason-giving possibilities of existing democratic institutions and practices. Hence, answering why the US Supreme Court should not be elected on democratic grounds also reveals new insights about the role of parties in sustaining (or subverting) deliberative democratic ideals

Deliberative democracy · Democracy · Law and economics · Normative · Political science · Politics · Representation (politics · Sociology · Supreme court · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub