According To Our Text, Political Science Is A Systematic

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

The power that the executive branch holds over the judicial branch is that the president, executive branch, is allowed to choose the judges. Who will be in the courtroom.

The supreme Court is the head of the judicial part of Government in the USA, it acts as an appellant court which can also on occasion deal with ambassadorial and diplomat cases. It is separate from the other 2 branches of government in order to remain independent and provides a powerful check on those branches. However it has been criticised by being called democratically lacking. The members have a significant amount of power

When it comes to policymaking, the Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. Actions undertaken by the other branches of government recieve judgement through the power of judicial review. Ideology and judicial philosophies play an important role in judicial decision making, which in the end both informs and influences policy. Judicial decision making can be complex in ways that give certain weight toward factors dependent on the approach that justices take on the interpretation of specific laws and the Constitution.

Each state within the United States of America (USA) has its own unique judicial selection process within its court system. The judicial processes vary from court to court depending on a particular state. This paper analyses these processes, the qualifications for selecting the judges and the steps for removing judges from office, as it applies in the USA states of New York and Texas.

The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

In the nineteen thirties, the people of Missouri would pick judges and eventually politicians realized they could buy judges. They would buy votes especially an American politician Tom Pendergast, would try to pack the court with those who agreed with his political ideas. Until merit selection, the lawyers went against it and wanted a better way for judicial selection. Both Democrats and Republicans worked together and campaigned without financial interest. Leading to the Missouri plan where the judge is now chosen by merit and qualifications.

In consideration when making appointments would obviously be the candidates gender, race (to appease members of less represented minorities), religious affiliation (their stance on abortion et. al), possibility of judicial activism or restraint, and partisan affiliation (get the backing of your own interest groups or to gain support from the opposing).

Like almost everything in the world, there are advantages and disadvantages to the choices we make, and the same goes for who we elect as judges. One of the advantages of electing judges, especially being voted by the public, is that they make decisions that accommodate to the people , which is a very democratic way to look at it, but it gets them elected by the people. Like the presidential candidates, the people get to see the judges and vote on which one they believe will do right for the people, and also like the presidential elections it is a popularity contest. The judges need to appeal to the people, talk up a big game, make themselves known among the people. If the judges do not do what the people see as right, the people will argue and fight it until what they want or believe in then the people will not vote for them.

The origin of legal approach can be traced back to the 19th century when the study of politics also included topics like law and legal systems. For instance political scientists studying the legalities of the Supreme Court of the United States is predominantly legal in nature. The political scientists studying the legal approach does not restrict himself to exploring the legal system as such but goes one step further and also focuses on the legal and constitutional aspects of political decisions. The legal approach treats political science as a separate branch of study because they study in detail the legal aspects of the political system.(Tokani 2002)

As centuries have passed, political thought has undergone constant development and together with its development are changes. These changes had a tremendous effect in the discipline. Political philosophy continued to progress which affected both political theory and political science. It seems that with the progression of political philosophy, there was a growing need for the the discipline to become more scientific. They wanted it to be based on facts, to become value-free and to be precise. Political philosophy started veering away from the classics. Despite the continuous need to be scientific, there were still groups which remained inclined to the classics and believed that the traditions and values are essential in studying the discipline. These conflicting views concerning the traditionalists and the behavioralists caused the gap between political philosophy and political science and eventually the two separated. So it seems that as political philosophy progress, political science branched outside the academe and political theory, as it grew larger became more and more alienated.

Politics play a major role in every country and those who hold office have had some prior experience in politics before achieving the seat they now hold. Many of these politicians have backgrounds in Political Science that gave them the knowledge to pursue politics. Political Scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems. They research ideas that will help them analyze government policies, trends and other political issues. Political Science is a highly competitive field that requires many skills to achieve a job within the industry. However, once the time is taken to gain these skills, the benefits of the job are substantial.