Judicial Elections : Annotated Bibliography Essay

The federal government, as you know, is made up of 3 branches. The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial. According to page 197 in the history textbook it states, " Our national's judicial power resides in 'one Supreme Court' " this is known as the judicial branch. What the judicial branch does, the political significance of the judicial branch, and the relations with other branches are all important things to know about the judicial branch. The judicial branch is crucial to our government because it can declares actions of legislature unconstitutional.

     In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

I will now examine some of last election year's results. Voter turnout has decreased in the past years. There are two main factors that have been coming up in the past years. First, many citizens say that who is elected in office is not as important as it once was. Secondly, younger Americans are more cynical and disconnected from politics than ever. I think there is too much information out there and another thing that might be the reason this is happening is because candidates insult other candidates with their campaign ads. This confuses the voter like I mentioned before and makes them not want to go out and vote. In the next paragraph I will discuss why I think judges should be decided by partisan vote.

During the 1930’s, the community became more and more displeased with the growing role of politics in judicial selection and judicial decision-making. Judges were inundated by outside pressures due to the political features of the election process, and dockets were overcrowded due to time the judges spent campaigning. In November 1940, voters amended the Missouri constitution by adopting the Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan. This plan was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. The acceptance of the plan by initiative referendum resulted from a public repercussion against the widespread abuses of the judicial system by the political machine in Kansas City and by the political control exhibited by ward bosses in St.

Over the years the cost of running for judicial office has become more and more costly due to the amount of money it takes to purchase commercial ads and politicking. This has made it necessary to take donations in order to have a substantial campaign here inlays the dilemma; most Texans are indifferent to judicial campaigns leaving the donating to interest groups, lawyers, and possible litigants. Making the possibility for leniency and partiality in future cases where the donators could expect a more favorable outcome in their cases in the judges court. Our book states that 86 percent of judges believed that campaign support had some influences over judicial decisions. This would mean that guilt and innocence could be bought with campaign money endangering our very way of impartial decisions.

For more than decades the court has continued to be pivotal in some of the biggest decisions for the social identity of America. Specifically noting that for many years the majority of Americans supported things that shaped the identity of American history (i.e. Slavery, Gay marriage, Sodomy, etc.). Erwin Chemernisky continues to examine whether the courts roles in major social issues have failed the American people or not. Erwin continues to explain that the supreme courts failures culminated together, are not only a failure for race issues in America, but also a failure to interpret the constitution effectively (21). These broad generalizations of the court flourish throughout his book, however, it is final assessment of the court that leaves the most to be contended with. Specifically noting that overall the court has done way more harm than good with regards to addressing minority issues an in wake of the warren court has continued to make flawed decisions in favor of the majority (53). This rhetoric must be addressed and analyzed by first looking to professor Erwin’s view of the courts take on minority, secondly analyzing his take on the court before and after the warren era and lastly addressing his support and analysis of the purpose of judicial review. Through this analysis it will become evident that Erwin Chemernisky has misinterpreted the supreme courts position as a protector of minority rights instead of the upholder and interpreter of the constitution and law.

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

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

The major drawback of retention elections is that there is significant evidence that judges facing retention elections are likely to be biased toward popular outcomes. According to one study, “retention elections create pressure for judges to cater to

Yet the elective system gives the judges political party a stronger voice to be heard and lets their party viewpoints stand out to the public that vote them into office. However, in today’s elections more judicial campaigns are getting costlier and they are digging

The problem of judicial corruption in United States is immense. The Sixth Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights refers to the right to a speedy, fair and public trial. Unfortunately, our judicial system does not always maintain these rights. The United States judicial system is very corrupt and most of our country’s citizens do not know how corrupt it actually is. When thinking about the judicial system, words that come to mind are justice, morality, and fairness. Sadly, these words are not accurate descriptions of this system. Correct depictions of today’s judicial system are corruption, rigged courts, extortion, and phony trials. Our legal system does not bring truth or justice to our courtrooms. Overcoming this corruption is not

The judicial selection process can be complicated at times, and different states have different stipulations as to what needs to be required to be a judge. In recent years, proposals have been introduced by legislators, governors, courts, and citizens' groups in nearly every state to limit the role of politics in the selection of state judges (global reach com, 2016). In numerous states, there is more than one method used when it comes to selecting a judge. The judicial process in the state of Alabama requires special schooling and obligations to become a judge. Judges in Alabama are selected in the partisan balloting (globalreachcom, 2016). The Alabama Constitution implements necessary qualifications before an individual is selected to be a judge.

There is a proverb that says, “Don’t fix what isn’t broke.” This statement is very likely as true as it is old. But what happens when something is dysfunctional? The ‘something’ in question is the coveted seat of the Supreme Court Justice, which many should know is not a position that is obtained from the amazingly widespread routine of elections. Not to let out any spoilers if you were not aware, the President is the nominator of Justices to these associate positions and the Senate is the deciding group with a majority vote. I agree with the practice, currently instated because of our Constitution, but can see how some people worry over its effectiveness. There has been one case where a standing Supreme Court Justice has been impeached.

The lack of diversity in the judiciary is deeply entrenched in legal culture. A profession that is intrinsically white, male, and middle class is an intimidating environment for those who fall outside this categorisation. The problem with having a single dominant group is not so much the lack of gender, ethnicity and social minorities in the judiciary but rather the lack of understanding of the various life experiences and perspectives of the diverse community the judiciary serves. An understanding that can only be acquired first hand from personal experience. While it is generally accepted that increasing diversity in judiciary will improve the overall quality of judgments there is not really any real sense of urgency to address this issue. A more diverse judiciary is seen as more of a desire than a necessity. This complacency can be partially attributed to an assumption that eventually the judiciary will balance itself but this has proven to be unsuccessful.