Judges Should be Appointed Through a Debate Competition

Judges Should be Appointed Through a Debate Competition - Jake - 12-27-2023

The appointment of judges these days is a fairly dangerous process, as if we allowed the masses to pick who was going to be a cop, of course there will be a tendency for large groups to pick judges that will turn blind eyes, especially under recession's clause, which could impel us into the ground.  Having the legislative and executives branches select judges is like having the football team and popular person pick the principles and teachers, ridiculous!

Court rooms are a volatile place with the aspect of bribes, coercion and fidelity serious, much like a logical battlefield, where good judgement can make the difference between life and death, and even sparking wars themselves.  Law and debate have always been as one with court being center stage, and so it should go without saying that the processes surrounding the appointment of judges should consist of a litigious competition.  There should be arguments made by nominees, debated in a live competition with prepared material which would go nicely with a preceding polygraph battery, followed by a huge celebration after appointment on the spot.

The only question is how should judges be judged for appointment?  I believe that that should be accomplished best by using a large, live eGov system and most importantly these elections should be a kind of informal affair like a giant, classy government dinner party where the kids come too, that would be a secret weapon, and for them to watch on their eGov accounts.  All of that could be aided by AI and advanced sensory equipment perhaps tied to advanced polygraph algorithms.

This is vision of the future, done like it was in the ol' days.