Some americans prefer appointment of judges rather than elections because they believe appointment leads judges to be dependent on the other government branches costs less than if potential judges must run campaigns frees judges from the pressures of public support and re-election allows judges to focus on the will of the people in judicial review

A portion of Americans prefer appointment of judges rather than elections because they believe appointment frees judges from the pressures of public support and re-election.

To add, Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution.

The correct answer is frees judges from the pressurs of public support and re-election.

When an individual has to run for office, they often take actions based on the desire of citizens. Even though this can be beneficial for some offices, it does not necessarily benefit individuals who would be running for the chance to be a judge.

If judges have to worry about election campaigns, they may rule on important cases based on the wants of their voting base rather than interpreting the law in a fair and consistent manner. This is why the Supreme Court appoints justices for lifetime sentences. These justices do not have to worry about public opinion or winning over voters with their ruling. Rather, they do the best they can to accurately interpret the constitution on behalf of the American people.