BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Elected judges are effectively forced to join political parties

Dirk Olin. "Judicial Selection: Does Any Method Work?". Judiciary Reports. April 9th, 2008: "Electing judges puts enormous control into the hands of a few party leaders, who (by definition) are unmitigated whores. The political process of becoming a party nominee reflects the worst of all worlds, internal favoritism by paying off political debts or favors with a judicial nomination without regard to merit, or even basic competence. Licking envelopes for a party boss is not a primary qualification for being a judge. It is, however, for being a judicial nominee." Elected judges are also pressured to join political parties as a means of appealing to voters.
Screening can help ensure judicial candidates have sufficient merit.

Some have proposed a kind of hybrid system in which judicial elections exist, but in which a pre-screening process ensures that all candidates appropriately qualified to become a judge. This maintains the ability of voters to choose based on their best judgement, but also ensures against instances in which wholly unqualified judges are elected to the bench. This, along with other possible systems, demonstrate that it is unnecessary to entirely rid the system of elections. Elections can be maintained, while various mechanisms can be worked into place that check against any of the difficulties they may produce.
Unelected judges lack authority need by co-equal branch of govt.

Elections offer a certain amount of legitimacy. They confer the power of the people to a government's rule by and for the people. Lacking such electoral legitimacy, the judicial branch lacks authority. This is a problem in a government that demands checks and balances from co-equal branches. Indeed, in the United States, the judicial branch is considered the weakest of the three branches of government. But, should this be the case in a government established on the precepts of co-equal branches? An elected judiciary would be a more powerful judiciary, and thus provide for stronger checks and balances and stronger governance.
Elections and campaigning distracts judges from responsibilities

"Should we elect judges?". Belief Net. June 9, 2009: "there's the issue that election campaigning isn't always the best use of a judge's time. We expect our judges to handle a lot of cases in a given year, and the need, in a hotly-contested race, to make speeches, travel to meet with constituent groups, give access to the media for interviews etc. means a portion, possibly a large one, of the judge's time and attention during an election year are going to be demanded by the campaign itself."
Election of judges delegitimizes their role

Jason Kleinman. "So should we elect our judges or is there a better way?" Why it's our City. June 15th, 2009: "Here’s what electing judges does. It forces them to beg campaign cash from the very people who would appear before them in court. It forces voters to choose from clogged slates of unknown names. Not surprisingly, those voters fall back on dumb factors such as ballot position, ethnic surnames and who bought the most TV ads. Judicial elections have become costly showdowns between corporate and union lobbies, with clueless voters in the crossfire."
Judiciary is weaker; should not be stronger by elections

The judiciary is almost always considered an inherently weaker branch of government due to its inherent lack of "force" and "will". This is appropriate and is outlined in the American Federalist Paper #78 (1803): "The judiciary...may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two...that...the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean, so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the Executive."
Correlation b/w interests of donors and judges doesn't prove corruption.

Some have tried to demonstrate a correlation between the interests of donors to the election campaigns of judges and the ultimate decisions of those judges. The idea behind these studies is that such a correlation demonstrates a tendency for judges to be biased or corrupted in favor of the views of their funders. Yet, such a conclusion is hard to prove. Donors are only likely to give money to judges that demonstrate a likelihood, irrespective of the money, to make decisions according to a certain philosophy that correlates to their own interests. The direction of the causality is important to recognize. Donors are giving money to those that are likely to uphold their interests; judges are not necessarily bending their judicial philosophies and decisions to cador to the interests of donors.
Electing judges has the appearance of public legitimacy.

While it may be true that elections can create the appearance of conflicts of interests and corruption, is it not also true that appointments can create the appearance of corruption between the appointer and appointee, and because appointed judges are less accountable and transparent to the electorate? Elections have the appearance of public approval and legitimacy through the process of the election and the accountability that follows. Elections, therefore, probably carry the greater appearance of legitimacy in the public-eye. Therefore, judicial elections are probably better for upholding confidence in the judicial system.
Judicial elections are known to produce inferior judiciaries

Walter Olson. "Judicial elections: a dissenting view". Point of Law. July 17, 2008: "Federal judges, who of course are exclusively selected by appointment rather than election, are widely seen as upholding a general standard of quality well above that of their state brethren. Business defendants in particular overwhelmingly seek to have their cases heard in federal court rather than state. Again, business litigants widely regard the judicial process of most other advanced democracies -- in Western Europe, Japan, Canada -- as more predictable and rational than that of state courts in the U.S. And again, in those other advanced democracies, elected judgeships are virtually unknown, being widely seen as part and parcel of the distinctive 'American disease' of law."
Appointment of judges is more prone to corruption than elections.

The appointment of judges can be done corruptly, in which a judge is appointed based solely on a close relationship, or because their is some promise of financial reward for making the appointment. And, after the election, there is a risk that a judge will pass biased judgement in favor of the one that appointed them, as a way of compensating them for the appointment. This is of at least equal concern compared to the possibility of corruption surrounding elections, and judgments later passed in favor of campaign donors. What may make elections less potentially corrupting is the fact that the process of selecting the judge (an election) is much less likely to be biased or corrupt, as compared to an appointment by one individual.
Judicial elections are more competitive, open, and fair

"In defense of elections". The Record. August 14th, 2005: "2004’s state supreme court race was the most intense and competitive judicial election Southern Illinois has ever seen. And that’s a good thing-for we the people, anyway. [...] Competitive debate isn’t the most comfortable exercise for everyone-- namely that ruling class accustomed to dominating the courthouse. This explains why the plaintiff’s bar is so dead set on ensuring an election like Karmeier vs. Maag never happens again. [...] Groups like the Washington, D.C.-based Justice at Stake Campaign (JASC)-the trial lawyer-backed group that released that new report-would have one think rigorous campaigns are a bad thing. [...] Only in the eyes of the losers and dictators are free elections, free speech and open discussion a public threat. [...] Just as our system didn’t create judicial elections to be ignored, it didn’t intend for our judiciary to exist in the shadows, nameless and unknown, immune from criticism. [...] In the case of Southern Illinois’ now notorious race, the underdog won, carrying the day with his reasoned arguments to the public in what would have typically been enemy territory. [...] Today Justice Lloyd Karmeier is undoubtedly more recognized by his electorate than any other judge in Illinois. That’s a goal and example to which our state should aspire, not reject."
Elections damage trust in impartiality of judges

Robert Heim. "Getting campaigns out of the courtroom" The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 18, 2009: "Some years ago, I was told of a lawyer who was sitting with a client in court, waiting for a newly assigned judge to hear his case. When the judge appeared, the lawyer whispered to his client that he was concerned, because the opposing lawyer was on the judge's campaign committee and had contributed to the campaign. After a pause, the client whispered back, 'So why didn't you contribute?'"
Elected justices are corruptly influenced by campaign funders

Susan Finch. "Money Talks, Says Study of Justices". The Times-Picayune. February 1, 2008: "a Tulane Law School professor has concluded after he and another scholar studied voting patterns on the state's high court over 14 years. In 181 civil cases between 1992 and 2006, the nine justices have been significantly influenced by campaign donations in making their decisions, says the study, which is soon to be published in the Tulane Law Review."
Merit, not money, should sway judicial elections

"Electing judges-with cash". Cody Corliss. January 30,2008: "Now that a judge can be more open about his or her beliefs, money is flowing into judicial campaigns as never before. The 2006 judicial campaign season was the highest spending on record, according to Justice at Stake, a nonpartisan monitoring group. That year, business interests gave $15.3 million to judicial candidates while attorneys kicked in another $7.4 million. Third-party interest advertising accounted for another $8.5 million. One can only imagine that 2008 will be another record year.So what can we do to end the money exchange in state judicial elections? Simply put, it's time to end judicial elections on the state's highest courts." The main problem with the requirement that candidates spend large sums of money to compete in judicial election campaigns is that it limits the prospective pool of candidates to the rich, powerful, and well-connected. These things have nothing to do with judicial merit.
Elected judges are more in tune with public opinion

The system of training through law schools and vocational work is elitist and prolonged, and leaves judges’ opinions at risk of being, or appearing, out of date or out of touch. Law schools have a reputation for being more liberal than the majority. Judges are often seen as lacking knowledge of recent social trends. Elections can help reverse these trends by forcing judges to understand and respect public opinion so they can advance a form of law that is seen as "just" to all citizens, not just to their own conscience.
Lawyers are not free to campaign against judges

"Editorial: Time To Appoint Judges". Shreveport Times. September 21st, 2008: "Lawyers are reluctant to run against a sitting judge for obvious reasons, particularly if the would-be candidate is a courtroom attorney. [...] Of this flawed judge-'til-retirement system, one retired Missouri circuit judge, J. Miles Sweeney, said of never having to face an opponent in four elections in Greene County: 'Nobody ever had a chance to vote against me. I was never accountable.'"
Democracies have no obligation to merit.

Democracies, even representative, have nothing to uphold other than letting the voters have a voice. By it's very nature a democracy would do nothing to preserve a precedence on any sort of merit or qualifications. What's even worse is the fact that voters care very little about merit, and any elections show it. There is no real correlation of experience to votes won, if one looks back at an history of elections. To allow for a meritocracy to occur with choosing judges, people who actually appreciate merit must be the deciders. Those people are no the average voters, because as Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument agaisnt democracy, is a five-minute consversation with the average voter."
Elected judges bring hassle of regulating conflicts of interests

"Elect to appoint judges instead". York Daily Record. June 12, 2009: "The high court ruled in a West Virginia case that judges must recuse themselves from cases involving high-dollar donors who helped them win their seats. [...] If Pennsylvania used a merit selection process -- as proposed in recently introduced legislation -- we wouldn't have to worry about running afoul of that ruling and judges wouldn't have to try to figure out whether a $50 donation requires recrusal."
Impossible to avoid big-money influence in judicial elections

"A question of integrity". News & Record of Greensboro. June 19, 2009: "Although most statewide judicial candidates participate in a public campaign financing system, that’s not a safeguard against big-money influence. Blankenship contributed only $1,000 directly to Benjamin’s campaign. He gave $3 million for so-called independent expenditures on Benjamin’s behalf. The same thing could happen in North Carolina."
Unelected judiciaries are prone to recklessly expanding their powers.

Thomas Jefferson: "the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the Constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, and the government of all be consolidated into one."[2]
Judges are appointed/confirmed by elected officials, democratically.

Judges are appointed and confirmed by elected officials, which means that they are democratically appointed, albeit indirectly, via the people's elected represantives. This is common and appropriate in a republic, that some individuals are not directly elected, but whom are democratically accountable one-step-removed. Appointed judges, therefore, are not removed from the election process and the people's judgement; they are at arms length to the democratic, electoral process.
Equality of per capita emissions does not work when states specialize.

In modern international capitalism and free trade, states specialize in areas in which they have a comparative advantage. This may mean that some states specialize in manufacturing and some in services, industries with far different emissions. Attempting to hold these specializing states to the same per capita emissions levels, therefore, does not make sense. It would require that all states have the same share of all industries, which is neither economically or environmentally desirable.
US is responsible to lead in fighting global warming

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. - "It is essential for the U.S. to take action. The rest of the world looks to the U.S. for leadership [but] the perception round the world is that the U.S. has not been very active in this area. [... And, this would] undoubtedly reestablish confidence in U.S. leadership on critical global issues."
Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on climate change.

China, India, and Brazil are all part of the G20, as mentioned in the above section. This means they are among the twenty wealthiest nations in the world. As a result, it is wrong to assume that they do not have enough money to spare in the fight on climate change. They have plenty of resources, through a broad tax base, to make major state investments in "green" technologies. They are just as obligated as developed states to commit these significant, available resources.
World's manufacturing is in China, emissions must be cut there.

It is true that much of the world's manufacturing and emissions are occurring in China. But, this is not a cause for exempting these countries from the emissions standards present in developed countries. This would effectively mean that the world and all the nations that outsource to China get an exemption, so long as they are outsourcing to China, which would be unfortunate on many levels. The world should not allow for such an emissions loophole, and must act to fully constrain emissions in China without exemptions.
Developed must protect developing from higher costs of warming

The authors of a 2006 UN report warned that rich countries - especially the wealthy Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations - are driving an ecological crisis that will hit the poor hardest. These are nations living near the equator and in low-lying coastal areas most vulnerable to rising seas. This global warming "irony" creates a greater obligation on the part of developed countries to respond, and protect developing countries from the costs of their blind industrialization, mass consumption, and wealth-accumulation.
Developed countries hypocritically reprimand developing states.

It is hypocritical for developed countries to complain at developing countries for polluting more heavily at present, when this is exactly what developed countries did long ago to achieve their great wealth. This overall sentiment is reflected in a statement in 2007 by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva - "The wealthy countries are very smart, approving protocols, holding big speeches on the need to avoid deforestation, but they already deforested everything [in their own countries]."[3] Furthermore, it should be noted that it is only through this heavy industrialization that developed countries are now in a position of wealth and know-how that offers them the luxury of going "green".
Sectoral emissions standards constrain developing nations

Fred Pearce. "Rising nations face 'back door' emissions limits". New Scientist. April 26, 2008: "Developing countries are hostile to global standards, which they see as a way of imposing targets by the back door on countries which have far lower emissions per head of population than most developed nations. 'India is opposed to all sectoral global standards,' said Malini Mehra of India's Centre for Social Markets at the Royal Society meeting."
Developing states will not go "green" before developed competitors

China and India are very concerned with their development and their capacity to compete with the developed world. With significantly greater poverty and instability, they have far less flexibility to tamper with their competitiveness with developed nations on the global economic stage. They will only go "green" if the developed world goes green first, assuring them that their competitiveness will not be jeopardized. In a position of greater economic flexibility, developed countries must take the first step. Only then will developing nations follow.
China is basically "developed", with higher "obligation".

While many presume that China is a "developing" country, many others, particularly in the much poorer parts of the Third World in South East Asia, consider China to be in the "developed" category. China was, after, the third largest economy in the world at the beginning of 2009. As a "developed" nation, China would certainly have a greater obligation to fight global warming. Emissions exemptions would violate this obligation.
Developed states did not initially know they were causing warming.

Developed nations did not always know that they were causing global warming by burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This knowledge only began to form in the 1980s and 1990s, over a century after the industrial revolution had begun. It is inappropriate, therefore, to hold developed nations morally accountable for starting the industrial revolution and causing global warming; they knew not what they were doing. And, once developed economies were dependent on fossil fuels, it was not possible for them to immediately act on their knowledge and stop using fossil fuels - particularly when not everyone accepted the science behind global warming. It is, therefore, wrongheaded to "blame" the developed world for global warming and saddle them with the "punishment" of a greater obligation to combating it.
Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

US, Japan, China, Germany, India, and Brazil are among the largest and most powerful countries in the world. This list, and a larger list of G20 states, includes both developed and developing nations. China, India, and Brazil are the most notable large developing nations in the G20. Due to their size, economic power, and emissions (now and in the future), they share an equal responsibility to fight global warming. For the same reason, they share an equal responsibility with developed nations to apply their leadership role in their respective regions to lead the fight against climate change. If they do not, surrounding countries - fearing a loss of competitiveness in particular - will not take strong actions to combat global climate change. Therefore, it is important that all of the most powerful nations in the world - developed or developing - lead their regions in the fight on global climate change.
China and India emissions will increase over time; cannot be exempted.

India and China are two of the worst polluters on the face of the earth. As they industrialize, their contributions to global warming will become astounding and far exceed the emissions from other countries. Compared to 2005, China's total emissions increased by 9% in 2006 (to 6.2 billion tons of CO2), while emissions in the US decreased by 1.4% (to 5.8 billion), compared to the previous year. China's increasing rate of CO2 emissions is heading toward a 50-100% increase above the current world total for CO2 emissions, by 20 years from 2008. The scientists warn that if China continues to increase its GDP at a rate of at least 7% per year, it will by then be emitting as much CO2 per year as the whole world emitted in 2007, -- 8 gigatons per year. China has a unique obligation to cut this high and dangerous emissions growth rate. Holding them to lower standards with emissions exemptions would exacerbate this already disastrous prospect.
Developing nations should be held to global sectoral standards.

These are standards set across a specific industry, most importantly manufacturing, for the purpose of ensuring that similar factories around the world are held to the same emissions standards. This is important because measuring the total emissions of a nation does not provide much useful information. What is more important is that the most polluting industries around the world are held to the same standards. They are also important because they prevent the shifting of production to countries with lower standards for specific factories in an industry. On this point, Ian Rodgers - director of the trade association UK steel - said that a European carbon limit alone "is not going to curb emissions. It will just move the emissions elsewhere."[5]
Developing world growth will not negate developed emissions cuts

Kevin A Baumert and Nancy Kete. "Will Developing Countries' Carbon Emissions Swamp Global Emissions Reduction Efforts". World Resource Institute. 2002 - "One of the concerns regarding the Kyoto Protocol has been that it exempts developing nations from targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, many people worry that developing country emissions will skyrocket as they develop economically, effectively swamping the expensive efforts of developed countries required to make large investments in lowering their emissions. However, evidence has shown that this is not likely."