Judicial Myths

On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power.

Reality and Fiction: the True View 1 Reality and Fiction: the True View Americans rely a great deal on their entertainment to educate them about life. In many ways Americans live vicariously through the experiences of fictional characters and believe themselves to learn many things from fictional characters. For example, many persons have said they learned CPR by watching medical shows on television or believe they can assist in a medical emergency because they have seen “experts” on television handle similar situations.

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

While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.

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

Americans depend a great deal on entertainment to educate them about life. In several ways Americans live vicariously through the actors and actresses on television and believe themselves to learn many things from those actors and actresses. For example, many people have said they learned medical techniques by watching medical shows on television or believe they would know what to do in a medical emergency because they have seen it done on television. The same goes for Americans’ knowledge about Court hearings and the judicial system. Many things are done on television by actors playing lawyers or judges that are done just for the purpose of entertainment. “Reality-based” Court shows such as Judge Judy, People’s Court

In Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland proposes his ideas on how America is now being heavily influenced by tyrannical judges who pervert the constitution, to support their individual positions. According to Cambridge Dictionary, tyranny is defined as, “unlimited authority or use of power, or a government which exercises such power without any control or limits” (Cambridge 2015). There is, in our society, an over-reaching judicial branch ran by judges who are consumed by the idea that they are the resource which can establish or re-define the law. The three fallacies with our society is tyrannical judges who impose man’s law above sovereign law , citizens who don’t know about the un-constitutional rule that judges are imposing over the courts, and those who know about it but don’t know how to react when facing a tyrannical judge.

When it comes to policymaking, the Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. Actions undertaken by the other branches of government recieve judgement through the power of judicial review. Ideology and judicial philosophies play an important role in judicial decision making, which in the end both informs and influences policy. Judicial decision making can be complex in ways that give certain weight toward factors dependent on the approach that justices take on the interpretation of specific laws and the Constitution.

Judicial Selection: Part I. Reform: Are Campaign Contributions Compromising the Intendent Judiciary is an article by Adam Skaggs and You May Know the Law but I Own the Judge: Why Congress Can and Should Get Involved in State Judicial Election Reform, is an article by Jonathan Berman are the two articles are critiqued. They are both about monetary funds that are donated to campaign funds of judiciary election candidates. They both look at how large amounts of funds are donated by different entities for many different reasons. Most being for self-gain which lead to corruption in the system

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

     It is nearly impossible to avoid politics during the appointments of high profile positions; therefore, the idea that Supreme Court is above politics when referring to its appointments is giving to much credit to that entity. The appointments of the Supreme Court, as with any political body, correlate no only to the media's portraying, but also to interest group the President wishes to appease.

In partisan elections, the party affiliation of the candidate is indicated on the ballot. This election method is constantly criticized and is only used by a few states when selecting judges, Texas being one of them. Several questions come to mind when discussing partisan elections causing many to believe that it's an inappropriate way to choose judges. when citizens elect judges in partisan elections problems arise when considering campaign contributions, lack of minority representation on the bench, perceptions of fairness, and lack of knowledge on the part of the voters.

Unlike congress where laws are passed under their influence, the court upholds laws or repeals laws based on constitutional interpretation. These forms of interpretation are applied with both judicial independence, and judicial impartiality. Judicial independence essentially refers to a principle that binds the courts and judges to the law and that their holdings and decision’s should be made without any political and governmental influences (Dammer, H., & Albanese, J. p.159). The Supreme Court, although chosen on a political spectrum, does practice such forms of independence. Such as the case with current chief justice John Roberts, who appointed by George W. Bush a conservative republican, voted for Obamacare’s constitutional validity, and was the deciding swing vote in the case (Tribe, L. H., & Matz, J. 2014). Judicial impartiality is closely related to judicial independence, however it notes that all parties in court be treated as equals (Dammer, H., & Albanese, J. p.159). In essence, while lower courts judges and prosecutors have been known to favor each

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.