Judges Should Be Appointed For Preserve Judicial Independence

Within the legal system judges are seen as impartial and diligent decision-makers in the pursuit of justice . In theory, judges are arbiters of truth who, after careful consideration of all information, decide whether the evidence is credible and whether a suspect’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But how do judges perform this taxing task? How do they assess the evidence to reach fair decisions? Most importantly, are their decisions fair and do they comply with the principles of due process? The truth of the matter is that we know little about how judges actually decide criminal cases. Judges reside in their chambers and remain out of the public eye while deciding cases. Judicial decision making for criminal cases remains a well-hidden secret in the judge’s chamber.

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.

Judicial independence is a concept of constitutional law that requires the judiciary o be kept away from all other arms of the government. It requires that the judiciary be free from influence from the other arms of the government and any private individuals. It is vital for the doctrine of separation of powers. Judicial accountability is a principle that brings the concept of keeping the judiciary under scrutiny. It requires that the judiciary and judicial officers be held accountable for their actions while in office (Seibert-Fohr & Muller 2012, p.10). This essay is aimed at discussing these two principles and assess whether the change in the Australian judicial appointments process would enhance judicial independence and judicial accountability with a view of making recommendations where changes are necessary.

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

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.

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

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

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

To ensure a fair trial, judges need to be independent and impartial. Judges must be screened by the Judicial Council, they all have to have been a practicing lawyer for at least 10 years and must be in good standing with the legal community. To remain impartial, judges are appointed until age 75 unless are they are proven incompetent or guilty of misconduct. This is to ensure that their employer cannot threat dismissal due to their decisions. Judges are also not allowed to contact government officials or politicians about the cases they are handing, nor are they allowed to participate in politics, other than voting. These measures are all taken to ensure that judges remain impartial and that everyone gets a fair trial.

Like almost everything in the world, there are advantages and disadvantages to the choices we make, and the same goes for who we elect as judges. One of the advantages of electing judges, especially being voted by the public, is that they make decisions that accommodate to the people , which is a very democratic way to look at it, but it gets them elected by the people. Like the presidential candidates, the people get to see the judges and vote on which one they believe will do right for the people, and also like the presidential elections it is a popularity contest. The judges need to appeal to the people, talk up a big game, make themselves known among the people. If the judges do not do what the people see as right, the people will argue and fight it until what they want or believe in then the people will not vote for them.

The American political system is built on a foundation of checks and balances, yet there is one branch which has somehow evaded this practice. The federal court system is defined by Article III of the Constitution, it represents one of three of the most powerful hands in the federal government. Unfortunately, the article which outlines its functions and limitations is extremely vague in nature. As stated in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, the President holds the authority to appoint a federal judge, should there be a position open. Furthermore, the Constitution states that “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” The usage of the phrase, ‘during good behavior’ is indicative of a lifelong tenure. In the younger years of the constitution, when the average lifespan was 35 to 50 years old, long tenures were not an imminent threat to democracy, nor was it reasonable for the founding fathers to foresee the development of such an issue. For this reason, the founding fathers only outlined three ways in which a Federal judge could constitutionally be replaced, including; death, voluntary retirement, and impeachment. However, when the position of SCOTUS was newly formed, the average tenure of a judge was 7.5 years, unfortunately now it is closer to 26.1 years. (Calabresi 2006)

An independent judiciary allows for the protection of certain values that society deems important. Thus this essay will critically examine the importance of an independent judiciary within the modern day constitutional democracy of South Africa by outlining the key reasons on why an independent judiciary is needed. The reasons being that independent judiciary within South Africa’s model of the separation of powers is vital for the protection of South African citizens against the abuse of public power, the protection of human rights and the fair and impartial application of the rule of law. Then examine the limitations of an independent judiciary and lastly concluding that the separation of powers allows for an independent judiciary and the protection of the rule of law.

Judicial independence is the idea that the judiciary, which will be further discussed in this essay, should be kept separate from other branches of government (namely the executive and legislature). This means that the judiciary and its courts are not to be biased, influenced or unfairly persuaded by other parties. It can be said that an independent judiciary is the foundation to a fair legal system in any democratic state. The independence of the judiciary in South Africa is set out under Section 165 of the Constitution, aside from looking at the importance of Section 165, this essay will also look at the relationship between judicial independence, the doctrine of separation of powers and the importance of the rule of law.

In Pakistan, the system of selecting judges is on a merit based assessment by a Commission consisting of various members from different branches which allows judges to act in an impartial manner. I believe that when judges know that they do not owe anything to a specific political party or to any campaign supporters they are likely to act in a more impartial way, thus strengthening the independence of the judiciary. Thus, in my opinion I find that the best way to ensure the safety and independence of the judiciary is for a state to adopt a selection method which involves a detailed assessment of a candidate’s qualifications by a body of people (Commission) consisting of members of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches along with qualified legal professionals of the community, who may then forward their recommended candidates to the selecting authority. Such a system is incorporated in the constitution of Pakistan, as described earlier. In contrast, states that incorporate a process of merit-based selection by way of nominating a commission do not completely adhere to this process. Rather, they require the judges to go through retention elections in order for them to retain their seats. To me a process does not seem to adhere to a merit-based selection if once a judge is selected he has to go through an election to remain for a further tenure. The example of judges selected on merit in Indiana fits into this context. Similarly, in an article published in the