Selection-system shifts trace the alternating ideals of independence and accountability.

Evidence

The conflict over President Bush’s nominees for the Supreme Court reflects an ambiguity in Americans’ expectations about judges. On the one hand, we want judges to be independent and impartial. On the other hand, we want all officials who exercise power to be responsive to public sentiment and accountable for their actions. Over the course of the nation’s history, Americans have alternated between these two perspectives, and changes in the mode of selecting state judges have reflected this alternation. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 370

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Judicial independence means freedom from improper external pressures. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 374; Demographic representation is a third competing value in judicial selection — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 591; American judicial selection shifted over time with alternating independence and accountability values — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 370