preview

Judicial Controversy With Impartial Justice

Decent Essays
As old as the birth of our nation, the political controversy that raises the question whether judicial elections are inconsistent with impartial justice is an ongoing debate that is especially important because more than ninety percent of U.S. judicial business is carried out by state courts, and approximately nine in ten of all state court judges face the voters in some type of popular election. In the recent landmark Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (2015) decision, the Court found that a state has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary system. The authority of the court relies solely on the willingness of the people to abide by its decisions. By constitutional principles, proposed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, the court has no way to persuade the public by either the purse, as in our legislative branch, nor by the sword, as in our executive branch. Consequently, if the public’s perception is that a judge can be “bought” through campaign funding or individual contributions, that perception will erode the public’s confidence in the integrity of that particular judge, the court in which he/she serves, and will ultimately undermine our three-branch system of justice.…show more content…
independent-expenditure only committees)--are not required to disclose the identities of their donors. Super-PACs were made possible by two Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Speechnow.org v. FEC. The Citizens United Court determined that money is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment and because super-PACs and dark money organizations operate through independent expenditures--independent from candidates or political parties--they could expend unlimited amounts of money to influence
Get Access