Judges perform a critical role in integrity systems. However, the reasons for the appointment of one judge over another are rarely public and sonetimes partisan. There are four safeguards against 'stacking'. The first is the possibility of appeal and reversal against decisions made -always a potential embarrassment as well as defeating the purpose of 'stacking'. This safeguard is, of course, non-existent in ultimate appellate courts. The second safeguard is the tenure of judges. Even here there can be problems where judges can be 'promoted' to another court. The third is that judges are joining a collegial institution where the opinion of their fellow judges is important to them. This works very well where judges have been appointed by different governments with different preferences and, especially, where they have appointed individuals with strong independent views. However, where a government holds power for a long time, stacking becomes a real possibility and the abovementioned safeguards are neutered. The fourth safeguard is that their decisions and reasons given are public. While few members of the general public read them, barristers do and judges are generally very keen to be thought to have integrity and ability by those who appear before them. This may seem ironic given the formally obsequious way in which barristers address the bench in many jurisdictions. However, in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, they appear very keen on the respect of their former peers.