Question

Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence.

—Alexander Hamilton,
Federalist No. 78

Why does Hamilton think judges should be appointed permanently rather than on a periodic basis?

Permanent appointments allow for greater regulation but less independence.
Periodic appointments promote a fatal independence.
Periodic appointments are hard to regulate.
Periodic appointments would destroy a judge’s independence.

Answer 1

Hamilton believes that judges should be appointed permanently rather than on a periodic basis because he believes that periodic appointments would be detrimental to the necessary independence of judges. He argues that no matter how these appointments are regulated or by whom they are made, they would still somehow compromise the independence that judges need to make impartial decisions.

By appointing judges permanently, Hamilton suggests that they can be more independent in their decision-making. Permanent appointments would mean that judges do not have to worry about their positions being influenced or threatened by political or public pressures. They can focus solely on upholding the law and interpreting it objectively.

On the other hand, periodic appointments would create a situation where judges might be more inclined to cater to the interests of those who have the power to reappoint them. This could compromise their ability to make unbiased and fair decisions. Hamilton argues that this kind of dependence on the appointment process would be detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary.

In summary, Hamilton believes that permanent appointments for judges are necessary to ensure their independence and protect the integrity of the judicial system. Periodic appointments, regardless of how they are regulated, would threaten this independence and compromise the ability of judges to make impartial decisions.

Answer 2

Final Answer-Explanation:

Alexander Hamilton believed that judges should be appointed permanently rather than on a periodic basis because he thought that periodic appointments would destroy a judge's independence. He argued that judges should be free to make decisions without fear of being removed from office for unpopular rulings. He also believed that permanent appointments would lead to a more stable and experienced judiciary.

Hamilton's argument is based on the idea that judges should be independent from the political branches of government. He believed that judges should be able to make decisions based on the law, without fear of being influenced by political considerations. He also believed that a permanent judiciary would be more stable and experienced than a judiciary that was constantly being changed.

Hamilton's argument has been influential in American history. The Constitution of the United States provides for the appointment of federal judges for life terms, and most states have similar provisions in their constitutions. However, there have been some calls for term limits for judges, and this issue is likely to continue to be debated in the future.