Alexander Hamilton believes that judges should be appointed permanently rather than on a periodic basis because he argues that permanent appointments would ensure the necessary independence of judges.
1. In his statement, Hamilton states that periodical appointments, regardless of the regulations or the authorities making them, would somehow be detrimental to the independence of judges. This implies that periodic appointments could compromise the impartiality and autonomy of judges in making fair and unbiased decisions.
2. Hamilton suggests that permanent appointments would safeguard the independence of judges. By appointing judges permanently, they are less susceptible to external pressures, political influences, or the need to cater to certain interests that may arise during the periodic reappointment process.
3. Furthermore, Hamilton contends that periodic appointments would make judges more vulnerable to political interference. If judges had to face regular reappointment, they might feel compelled to make decisions that align with the preferences of those responsible for their reappointment, potentially compromising the integrity and impartiality of their judgments.
Overall, Hamilton believes that permanent appointments for judges are essential for ensuring their independence and safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system. By removing the need for periodic reappointments, judges can make decisions without external pressures or biases, thereby upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law.
Final Answer-Explanation:
Hamilton believes that judges should be appointed permanently rather than on a periodic basis because he believes that periodic appointments would destroy a judge's independence. He argues that judges need to be able to make decisions without fear of being removed from office, and that periodic appointments would make them too susceptible to political pressure.
Hamilton's argument is based on the idea that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, and that judges should be independent from the other branches. He argues that if judges are appointed on a periodic basis, they will be too concerned with pleasing the other branches of government, and will not be able to make impartial decisions.
Hamilton's argument has been influential, and it is still used today to argue against periodic appointments for judges. However, there are also arguments in favor of periodic appointments. Some people argue that periodic appointments make judges more accountable to the public, and that they help to prevent judicial tyranny.
Ultimately, the question of whether judges should be appointed permanently or on a periodic basis is a complex one, and there are valid arguments on both sides.
