Case 4.2 Judicial Review

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

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

If you think that this is an odd way to elect our judges, you are not alone. Even the former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson is a misguided way to elect our judges. (Horwitz). One major drawback for this is with the people who vote in the election, more often time than not do not have adequate information to give a well-informed vote. Most of the time, if people do not have a lot information about all the candidates on the ballot, then they nearly every time vote for the name they know which is the name running for re-election. For the voters who do this they might possibly be jeopardizing a better person qualified for the position, but they do not realize this because of the lack of information that they have access

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

In Document E: Athenians not voted people into office but they had a regular procedure for voting one block the way. I think that the united states almost does the same thing about voting to go to office. I think they should have a way to vote for offices so they can make the laws.

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.

1. The witness has first had an opportunity to explain or deny it and counsel for the other parties have had an opportunity to ask about it, and

In this brief, I am going to prove to you, the judges and the court, that Officer Raymond’s initial stop is objectively justified under the Fourth Amendment and the New Setonia Statute. Because the truck was old, Officer Raymond’s experience being a police officer, and Mr. Jackson’s making movements towards the glovebox while Officer Billy was approaching the car, this proved there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car. Additionally, even if Mr. Jackson’s car was not a commercial vehicle, there were enough other factors pertaining to search of the truck that made the mistake of law objectively reasonable. Based on all of the facts and the evidence listed in the case, the state of New Setonia is going to win.

The point that I understand is we as citizens need to judge these presidents we vote for before letting them have all this power. I understand that the qualifications of these branches shouldn't just

Judicial Review is one of the court's most important powers and arguably the most powerful one that this branch or any branch has. This is a power that allows the supreme court to make legislative and executive actions subject to review and possible invalidation. The power of Judicial Review was earned in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison. In this case it was decided that James Madison’s decisions to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace was unconstitutional, this has extended the power and now created what is known as judicial review. This has continued to affect laws and acts presently such as in the case of United States v. Nixon when Nixon was denied the powers of absolute executive privilege due to

Texas is one of seven states that elect judges in partisan elections. Judicial selection begins with partisan elections and notable amounts of money for campaigning in order to win the election or reelection. Partisan elections influence the electorate in a consistent party label voting procedure. With the present day option of split-ticket voting, the electorate can simply vote for their party. Judges are removed only by failure to be reelected by the Supreme Court due to incompetence, official misconduct, negligence, or by impeachment from the House or trial in the Senate with a two-thirds vote.

1) The vast majority of the Texas judiciary is chosen through partisan elections. Is this a good way to select judges?

I actually support the importance of electing judges mainly because most of the judges should be able to present the interest of being served by our community. Judges make the law. But some judges are held accountable to the law. All the other government officials are elected, so I believe judges should also be elected. Judges are basically there to represent our population. So when the judges are elected by the majority of people this lets us know that the judge has a great background, experience, and also a great personality that everyone wants in a judge. We need a judge because they are the voice of everyone when they enforce laws. The decisions that judges make in court follow the laws that citizens will follow. Although today

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It has final appellate jurisdiction over all cases in the United States of America. Although it was provided for only briefly in the Constitution, it is an instrumental part of our democracy.