Final answer:
The pros of the governor appointing judges include ensuring qualified individuals are selected, while the people having a say ensures democratic representation. However, there are risks of biased selections and populism in both approaches. The options (a), (b), (c), and (d) are correct.
Step-by-step explanation:
The pros and cons of the governor appointing judges while also giving the people a say can be seen from different perspectives. On one hand, the governor appointing judges ensures that qualified individuals are selected based on their expertise. This helps ensure that the judiciary is made up of competent individuals who can make sound legal decisions. On the other hand, the people having a say in the appointment of judges ensures democratic representation. This allows the public to have a voice in the selection process and helps maintain a balance of power.
However, there are also downsides to both approaches. When the governor appoints judges, there is a risk of biased selections based on political affiliations. The governor may choose individuals who align with their own political beliefs, potentially compromising the impartiality of the judiciary. On the other hand, when the people have a say in the appointment of judges, there is a risk of populism and a lack of expertise in the judiciary. The public may vote for candidates based on popularity or personal biases, rather than their qualifications and expertise in the legal field. Therefore, options (a), (b), (c), and (d) are correct.