Judicial Accountability Essay

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.

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

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

This allows the executive branch to determine the makeup of the judiciary branch, and through it exercise power over the legislative branch. Because the men and women appointed to the Supreme Court remain there for life, with no public elections to possibly remove them, a president can affect politics through his choice of appointees for decades after his time in office has ended (Romance, July 29). But this, too, is limited by the Congress as the president’s judicial appointments are subject to the consent of the Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289).

The justice system is just but the procedures within are somewhat flawed. Human nature is to have greed and power, that's what crumbles the system. People use the system for what it isn't intended for and get away with it whether it's good or bad. Such as the Tarina Garnet case. Trina Garnett, was a mentally disabled teenage girl who was charged with murder, after setting a fire that killed two people and was sentenced to life in prison.

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.

The election of judges can initially affect the way justice in Texas is seen by not balancing the true equality of the justice system. Choosing the incorrect person for a high power position, such as someone determined to play God like Adolf Hitler, can and will affect the community tremendously. Experts from the Center for American Progress say “…judges are expected to be true to the law, not to political parties or campaign contributors.” (Corriher, Web) Other ways it affects Texas is through the jurist’s quality of votes, especially through partisan elections. They may be able to see who they are voting for, but only base votes on what appeals to them. The Center for American progress addresses this by commenting how, “…voters tend to vote for the judicial candidates from the party with which they are affiliated.” (Corriher, Web) Elections can take a toll on Texas

The selection of the appellate judges is made by the help of the Tennessee plan. This is a plan that uses the assisted appointment. The assisted appointment method is also referred as the merit selection. The stage government appoints the judges with the help of a board. Commissioners are appointed who reviews the applicant’s resumes. The commission also interviews and screens the candidates for the position in the judicial system.

Proponents of Judicial Elections argue that electing judges at a state level allows the judges to reconnect with the people in a closer way and to be more sensitive towards public opinion. However, the Judiciary system, unlike its other two counterparts, was not created to be a democratic institution. Instead, it was built to examine whether the government or the people are acting in accordance to law. Therefore, I oppose Judicial Elections for several reasons. One, it introduces partisanship to a supposedly impartial system and two, it risks disrupting the initial purpose of the Judiciary System which is to counterbalance the steps taken by the Congress and the Executive branch with the law.

An important consideration throughout the decision of having judiciary review was appointing the judges and deciding on the tenure in office. There was high concern about these judges being unelected and serving for life. People thought this would lead to them being more corrupt and less likely to base their decisions around what the people really want and need. There would not be a huge check on them, and they would never have to face re-election, so would not have to focus on keeping everyone happy with them in their position. However, Hamilton argued that being unelected and serving for life was beneficial for these judges. Serving for life provides them with the time and ability to become experts in what they do. If they had to be switched out every so often, we would have judges becoming experts just to be kicked out of their position and replaced with new, less informed judges who would have to start the process of becoming an expert all over again. In keeping them unelected, we avoid the influence of factions or other groups that could sway their, or the public’s, decisions on policies and who to elect into office. They also will not be affected by the comings and goings of political parties, and will place them above any current “trending” social issues. They do have to serve under good behavior, however, lest they be impeached. Other

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.

While our nation was founded on the principle of a balance of power, coming from the ideology of Baron de Montesquieu, the Judicial, unlike any other branch, does not have regular elections for its positions or terms like Presidency or Congress. Justices are nominated and confirmed for seats on the Supreme Court for life and have the option to leave whenever they choose to, not when they are voted out of office. An example of this is Justice Stanley F. Reed. He worked with the panels for the D.C. Circuit and

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

Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice