Clerkships Of Clerks

This retention election process is beneficial because it allows citizens to retain judges who are doing significantly. It also allows us as citizens to vote off Judges who we think are doing poorly or do not represent us as a whole. Justice Penny White

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

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

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

There is an open seat in the supreme court. Since the death of justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, President Barack Obama has attempted to appoint judge Merrick Garland to fill this vacancy. However, the currently Republican U.S. Senate has refused to act on the nomination. This is not the first time the Senate has disagreed with the president's choice of nominee. The Senate confirms just around eighty percent of the president's nominations. There is a strong rationale behind this two-tiered appointment system. Seats in the Supreme Court are extremely important positions to hold; the Supreme Court has the role of interpreting the text of the Constitution and using that interpretation

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

In opposition to most states, Texas is one of a handful to do partisan elections to vote for judges. Contrasting viewpoints try to decide on whether the voting system should be partisan or nonpartisan bringing much debate in the election of the judicial candidates. Some argue the system should change because of possible bias both by the electorate and of the judge, others contend it is necessary to know what party the judges affiliate with in order to know what way they lean may lean in their final judgement. Many arguments bring to light the benefits and drawbacks of each system, critiquing the justness, dependability, and impartiality.

Bringing in new judges will allow for different thought patterns and views on certain problems. In addition, “a different perspective can permit you to more fully understand the arguments that are before you and help you articulate your position in a way that everyone will understand” (Sotomayor, 2016). Furthermore, newer judges would relieve others of the concern that the judges are unfortunately unable to keep up with the current society and their needs. As a result, newer judges will be able to notice the issues that the current society may be needed to be

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

Changing judges more often would result in more diversity. It helps with the judicial system because of the variety of ideas people come up with. It would help with the judicial

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

     A very recent example of the politics involved in Supreme Court appointments was the 2001 election. It was assumed that the next president would probably be making three new appointment to the Supreme Court. Because of this fact, the president could use this

In partisan elections, the party affiliation of the candidate is indicated on the ballot. This election method is constantly criticized and is only used by a few states when selecting judges, Texas being one of them. Several questions come to mind when discussing partisan elections causing many to believe that it's an inappropriate way to choose judges. when citizens elect judges in partisan elections problems arise when considering campaign contributions, lack of minority representation on the bench, perceptions of fairness, and lack of knowledge on the part of the voters.

The selection process of juries was designed to select citizens that were equal peers of the person involved in the trial. However, many disparities exist and the selection process at times seems to be disproportionate relating to race or ethnicity. Reform of the legislature would benefit those that are not being properly served.

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.