Determining the Elite Within Politics and the Judiciary Essay

In looking at how political patronage and merit system and how they differ the answer is simple. However, there is much controversy in both. According to The Craft of Public Administration, written by George Berkley and John Rouse states that, “The selection of civil servants by merit and by political patronage are not mutually exclusives”. What this is basically saying is that while the two may have the same relation to each other political patronage and the merit system limits control and can exclude others from participation. In this paper I will discuss the history of political patronage and merit system, attempt to explain how they differ, and why both are of relative importance to the other.

== == == == ==

== == == == ==

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

It was, therefore, seen as a breach of judicial independence. However following the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009, senior judges no longer sit in the House of Lords which means are free of political influence and decision making – and in effect – from the legislature as they can speak out against the government.

== == == == ==

This leads to “inevitable bias being introduced into our political and legal cultures” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). Because these judges are coming from similar backgrounds, they share perspectives that consequently lead to the suppression of those whose interests are not “adequately recognized or supported by the dominant, mainstream ideologies” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). It is not hard to understand why some fear a Charter that is so hard to change is violating the principles of democracy. Judges, in no sense, are in the position of moral authority nor are they experts in areas typically concerned with by the government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 543). The judiciary is the epitome of contrasting notions when it comes to self-governing, the heart of democracy. Allowing unelected judges to overrule decisions of legislators is problematic for all of society and represents the abandonment of self-government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 541).

Many people think that the only people that can make a decision for them through a court case is a regular judge, many people don’t realize that theres many cases that has been brought up all the way to the Supreme Court. The judges in the Supreme Court are the highest judges in United States, Basically whatever these judges say is what’s going to happen, they can speak something among each other and make a final decision as one. Not any person can just get the job as a Supreme Court judge, these judges are nominated by the President, and confirmed with the advice of consent from the senate. The cases and hearing go from 7 to 8000 a year. The Supreme Court goes way back to 1935, they were at many different places during the war. It was first made in the Old Senate Chamber from 1861 to 1935.

The other two ways that a member is in the upper chamber is through hereditary peers and Lord Spirituals. The hereditary peers are members whose family was appointed by kings or queens at one point in the United Kingdom's history, and that family has had that seat since appointment; there are ninety members who are appointed because they are hereditary peers. The other seat is given to twenty-four bishops representing the Church of England in the affairs of state. There is controversy about both of these member groups. The hereditary peers represent an era that was undemocratic and commonly considered irrelevant in a modern democracy. The other represents a religion that the majority of United Kingdom, a secular state, does not associate with (Lambert, 2016). The number of members in both of these groups mean that they have minimal influence on the government; steps were taken to remove the quantity of hereditary peers under Tony Blair and includes the slow removal of hereditary peers entirely from the chambers (Deborah Summers, 2009: 1).

The article introduces the Supreme Court’s decision in Republican party of Minnesota v. White which rendered the speech restriction on judicial candidates unconstitutional, and explains the undue politicization of judicial elections that resulted from it. It also acknowledges scholars who consider judicial elections to be the examples of a proper democratic process. Cann mentions the various interest groups that manipulate the results of the elections through massive funding and biased media coverage; also, the political parties which themselves are an interest group in most of the judicial elections as reflected in their explicit recruiting and endorsement of candidates. It mentions how voting patterns and party identification define the outcomes of an election and how retention election of judges can lead to gross miscarriage of justice.

As a child in this country, along with every other youth in the nation, I had to learn about the three branches of government and how each one operates. According to the Unites States Constitution, Article III states:

As stated in R.J. Rushdoony’s “Elitism,” “In Plato’s words ‘we have laid down, as a universal principle, that everyone ought to perform the one function in the community for which his nature best suited him. Well, I believe that principle, or some form of it, is justice’” (1). Therefore, it is considered just for a the elite members to follow their natural destiny to rule over others and contribute to the commonwealth, as well as it is for the common people to find their own place in society and obey the commands the rulers.

In Bagehot’s terms, contrary to Thomas Hockin’s argument, “[s]ince Confederation, the theory [sic] of parliamentary procedure” is not necessarily “anti-specialist.” Hockin conceptualized MPs outside committees as jack of all trades but specialists of none, since only due to standing committees can multipartisan MPs somehow “perceive that they have a ‘lawmaker’ role.” Responsible government, by definition, relies on explicit, visible political responsibility from a select group – Cabinet Ministers may not be accountable for failures in administration, but the political consequences is clear. Writing at the same time as Confederation, Walter Bagehot instead argued the superiority of the British Westminster system is that it recognizes that sunshine on the floor of Parliament is the best disinfectant, and because “[t]he natural tendency of the members of every legislature is to make themselves

== == == == ==

The highest public offices, including Magistrates, were eligible only to the richest men, while the next two tiers were eligible for successively lesser roles. The fourth and poorest tier, comprising the majority of citizens, was eligible for only limited roles.