Federal Judge Qualifications

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.

State court judges are selected in a variety of ways, including being selected by the governor of that State in which they reside or by the state legislature. In some cases, judges are able to run for election if they want to be a judge.

At present, all federal judges have lifetime tenure; it has been this way since the drafting of the United States Constitution. Many contend that when the Constitution was drafted, the life expectancy then was less than half of what it is now in the 21st century. One of the major criterion for selection was the expectation that the candidate had a longer life expectancy. In other words, the candidate must “be young enough to serve for several decades.” By limiting the term of Supreme Court Justices to that of eighteen years, doing so would provide the potential for an increased sensibility to modern politics and life. If we were to continue to adhere to the verbiage of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, justices could continue to hold the position provided each exhibits good behavior. The question remains whether the pros would outweigh the cons of bringing new life and younger insight into the Court and would it tip the scales and force our legislators to apply term limits.

Numerous Americans are unaware that by next year, the average age of Supreme Court justices will be 75. Unlike other countries, the United States’ Supreme Court does not enforce the idea of term limits. Once a judge is selected, when they leave the Supreme Court is up to their decision. Supreme Court justices may choose to retire early or die. However, as the judges are getting older and older, their health may intervene with the decisions that are being made. Issues regarding the health of the justices’ would not be a reoccurring annoyance if they were to be swapped out with younger and healthier judges; therefore, term limits are a good idea because there would be more diversity in the Supreme Court, mental and health issues would be reduced, and term limits would be long enough for judges to master the job.

The pros of lifetime appointment for judges are important. Unlike the rest us, supreme court justices do not have to worry about their actions costing them their jobs. They are able to go against the wishes of high ranking officials and they people that pay them. Without fear of repercussions

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.

There is currently a chaotic situation brewing within the federal judicial branch of the United States. Due to Congress refusing to submit nominations for federal judges to the executive branch, few overall nominations for the federal judicial vacancies are being submitted to the Senate for confirmation. This leaves senior judges struggling to handle caseloads meant for numerous people and the adjudication period doubling or tripling for those who are bringing cases within the federal court system.

In our American government nearly all of our officials titles have limits on them. Regulating the tenure that a single person is allowed to serve. One of our arguably most important positions in the American government, the supreme court justice does in fact not have a term limit. Many people question why they do not have term limits and in fact in the article "Why it’s time to get serious about Supreme Court term limits" they say "Only 17 percent said they supported life tenure. 66 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans supported the proposal - a strong, and rare, show of bipartisanship." With their study it shows that majority of people think it's a good idea.

While the Framers’ intent behind life appointments is to protect the Justices from political influences, it is assumed that when a President appoints a Supreme Court Justice that he will choose one with an agenda similar to his own. The Supreme Court should be an archetype of where the country is politically at a given time. However, with the irregularity of when Justices need to be replaced, the political composition of the court is affected. Jimmy Carter, for example, appointed zero Justices, while Eisenhower appointed five. This is extremely concerning because it has led to the political stacking of the court, as seen when there was a period of twenty six years when no Democratic Justice was appointed between Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bade Ginsburg. Justices have even been known to time their retirement to coincide with the political party affiliation of the sitting President so as not to tilt the balance of the court. This could lead to the political stacking of the court, which again, goes against the Framers’ original intentions of having an unpartisan

The Senate should consider every Federal Judge that is nominated by the president.  After the president takes the time to consider and nominate a possible judge, the Senate should show respect by considering the president and his decisions.  This keeps a good working relationship between the Senate and the president.  The Constitution says the president needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint a Federal Judge.  The Senate did not respond to President Obama’s nomination of a federal judge, so the nomination expired.  When President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch and Senate did give advice and consent.

Under the current Constitution, there are a few problems I want to solve. The appointment times of new Supreme Court justices are unpredictable and rare, because justices can serve as long as they are on “good behavior”. We never know when we will next see the appointment of a new justice because we do not know when a current justice will leave the Court. This unpredictability and rarity leads to two different issues. First, the appointment process becomes more political. An example of this is when Senate refused to confirm Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, and instead waited out almost a year for a new president to be elected and a different judge to be nominated. An elongated vacancy hinders the ability of the Supreme Court to perform its role, as seen by the fact that the Court only took 3 cases during that year as

When the founding fathers proposed the judiciary branch, they wanted it to not only handle disputes but to play a key role in the system of checks and balances. They didn’t explicitly layout a system of judicial review. Judicial review came about through the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which had the impact of making the Supreme Court a major law making body and not just a judicial agency. With this additional power given to the Supreme many individuals feel that over the past few centuries, the power of the Supreme Court has become too great and that 18-year term limits should be placed upon the Supreme Court justices. However, I disagree with the idea of term-limits. Term limits for Supreme Court justices should not be put into place

The Constitution of the United States of America says that all federal judges should be appointed to the bench and have lifetime tenure. This is so federal judges may maintain judicial independence and not judge a case for political reasons, but rather how the law applies to the case before them. However, many states still choose to elect their judges by popular vote and justify this because judges make decisions that affect constituents directly. These states maintain that constituents should have the right to choose who is best for them. An election by the people sounds like a fair and trustworthy method, but ultimately, large corporations pump millions into Super PACs to ensure their choice candidate is elected. Judicial elections are often exposed to attacks from special interest groups and Super PACs, thus sometimes making an uneven and corrupt playing field. The fates of fair and impartial courts are at stake, and they should not be for sale.

Explain the roles of lay people and lawyers in a criminal case Lay magistrates The integration of lay people into the legal system in England has been very successful. Firstly, because it involves people with local knowledge. Secondly the magistrates that are used come from a wide range of careers not just a legal background which gives them a more open mind also it is less expensive as a process. To become one, you must me between the ages of 18 and 65 years of age and live locally to the area that the courts cover.

The state of Florida 67 County Courts along with the Circuit Courts, Florida District Court of Appeals and Supreme Court are established via the State Constitution under Article V titled Judiciary. County Courts Judges differed based on community population and caseload for each county. Each county court judges must a registered voter of the specified county that are requesting office of and a member of the Florida Bar for five years; however districts with an inhabitants of