Appointing Judges

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.

I completely agree with what you are saying I think that we do need to be able to vote for a judge as we do with an official. Do you think you could explain to some of our readers what judicial review is?

Electing judges contradict the impartial and independent nature of the judicial system. Judges are not politicians. It is

There are two major factors that affect the confirmation process of a president’s nominees; one is party affiliation. Party affiliation is very important when the Senate is confirming a nominee, because Senate confirms nominees by a ⅔ vote. This could be very crucial to the president and his or her nominee, because if the majority of the Senate is part of the opposing party, this becomes difficult for the president to get his nominee confirmed. The second political factor is qualification to become a judge or justice. The Senate does not want an unqualified judge who does not know what he or she is doing. It is important to the Senate to approve someone who has experience in the judicial field than someone who has no experience at all. The

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

However, each of these alternatives have more cons than pros. Partisan elections do not even our courts, they just bring the bias out into the open, and make it easier for judges to be viewed as unfair and to make unfair statements without fear. States with partisan elections also have more party campaign donations for justices, and in turn more partisan justices. Their supreme courts are not evenly split between republicans and democrats, but rather dominated by one party. This partisan influence carries into states that also have only partisan primaries, such as Ohio. Direct appointment of justices seems like a good idea on the surface, but it only works if we assume that governors are truly unbiased and nonpartisan, neither of which can possibly be true. Governors are elected by a party, and run for that party. A governor’s appointment of justices would only lead to justices that align with his or her views being

The political cartoon analyzes the branches of government using football as a metaphor to show checks and balances that limit the power of the government. Furthermore, checks and balances work for the U.S. government because powers are delegated to each branch and the checks allow for equity among the branches. In the cartoon, the legislative branch and the executive branch are playing against each other while the judicial branch is the referee. In document one, Congress has the power to write laws, but the president can veto the bills that Congress proposes. Thus, the powers balance out the branches’ powers, which keeps them in a tight line of what they are allowed to do. Also, the President appoints judges, but Congress can reject them. They

I think judges should be decided by partisan vote. They are very high in rank and should be on the ballot when the governor or senators are being elected. This would be like killing two birds with one stone and it would probably cost less. As a result time and money would be saved. That is why I think they should be decided by

Under Partisan elections, Judges are chosen by the general population and candidates are voted for alongside political affiliations. In New York for example, all trial court judges partake in partisan elections with the exception of family courts judges. In Nonpartisan elections: Judges are elected by the population, without any knowledge of their political affiliation. In Legislative elections, selection

In the State of Texas, we have a rather odd way of selecting which judges will and will not be able to have a job in the State of Texas. The way we select them is the same way that we decide who is going to be the governor of the State of Texas, we elected them. There are many flaws with choosing election as the way of picking who will be judges. Some of the flaws are that there will possibly be a lack of minority chosen, voters tend to know little to none information about the local election let alone the candidates up for judges, and finally people contributing to campaigns. While few people know that this how we elected judges in Texas, but even fewer realize the consequences the will continue to pile up if we do not do something to put an end to this ludicrous way of choosing an influential position of office.

A crucial argument left unanswered is if state judges should be appointed or elected? Conflicting views raise many questions about how things would change in the court system. According to the article Justice at Stake, “One of the hottest debates in judicial politics today is whether judges should be chosen through competitive election or appointments. Each side has pros and cons”. Many states elect their judges through a merit selection process or appoint them through a process called the partisan election. Texas judges use partisan election where judges are elected by the people. Another question that arises is if Texas should continue using the partisan election to elect their judges when it may seem untrustworthy. A decision could be discussed on the process in electing state judges such as on the topics of improvements, conflictions, and which process seems more reasonable. Improvements can be made to the process of electing state judges… Overall, the appointment of judges varies by state, but looking at Texas’ past and present justice system will determine whether Texas should continue to elect, or switch over to appoint.

In Texas, we elect our judges through a partisan election. A partisan election is in which a party label appears on the ballot. Only six states, including Texas, elect justices in a partisan race. Many critics have claimed that a partisan election for judges have more negatives than positives. Due to their affiliation with a party, they are not fair and biased. However in most cases, these judges are consistent and accountable.

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.

When a judge is selected through executive appointment, the governor or legislature from the state they are in will choose them from a large selection of possible candidate. Traditionally, this process gives all of the power to appoint a judge solely to the governor. This process is the least effective of all three. There are zero states who still solely practice this method traditionally and there is a good reason for that. Essentially, the governor of a state can purely pick any eligible candidate. A governor could appoint someone that would help them further their political agenda. This is not a reasonable way to select a good candidate. There has to be regulations and systems in place that choose the most qualified candidate. Many states utilize executive appointment but have added methods to keep the governor in check. For example, in New Jersey a governor can

Relating to the point of political sentiment, the system for judicial appointment in England and Wales has also been subject to criticism with regards to the assessment procedure. One aspect that was heavily criticised is confidentiality and efforts to conceal who and what the assessment involves . In 1996, Anne Owers pointed out that “There is a need to move it away from the civil service into a more accountable system." To echo the collective opinion of many other critics, Owers scrutinises the rigid approach of judicial appointment and highlights the tendency for the Lord Chancellor to appoint clones . Another valid argument is that the lack of transparency provided by senior legal figures and judges assessing candidates, make judicial appointment