Classmate's Post Critique

The post We Aim for Injustice written by Susannah Hootman, I found to be a very well written summary of the problems with holding partisan elections. It became clear that the tone of concern was due to the importance of having judges who don't stand behind any particular party. This would allow for fair rulings in cases that incorporate individuals with opposing political views.

Key points on citizens, partisanship and judges were worded in a way that made their connections clear to understand. 
The notion that having judges who claim partisanship can create a biased justice system, was hard to argue against, especially when you are provided with logical explanations.

 "To have a judge openly admit their partiality towards those of their party does not assure one of the fairness of the trail."

Pointing out that people vote based on a political party, was an important matter to bring up because it shows the powers behind "A little "(R)" or "(D)" after a potential judge's name". I believe this was one of, if not, the most important issue that was brought up. 

A tone of frustration was reflected in the last sentence of the post, which explicitly stated the lack of responsibility that is shown by all the actors in partisan elections. 

However, I believe the paper could have benefited from examples of real life court case that showed a biased ruling. Besides it being an interesting fact to add it would have also given the thesis a stronger foundation.

Overall this was a great post! It had all the right elements; relevant content, organization, identifiable tone and good grammar. It fulfilled the job of being informative, and more.