Introduction The two articles being critiqued are; “Judicial Selection: Part I. Reform: Are Campaign Contributions Compromising the Independent Judiciary?” and “Reform from Within: Positive Solutions for Elected Judiciaries.” Both articles by their titles give away exactly what the writers intend to speak about. The articles in question are opposed to the current method of selection for Judiciaries, that being an election based process in most states. They fear that money, political standpoints, and flashy advertising are getting in the way of Justice being appropriately and justly being administered. They believe that a merit based selection should be utilized in making an individual a Judiciary. The questions these articles aim to answer …show more content…
He notes that “the ‘ask’ is undignified and the ‘give’ is fairly compelled” (Jefferson, 2009). What does this mean? What this individual gathered from the article and the provided script of one of his phone calls is the individual called upon to donate does not really have a choice in the matter as to if he or she will donate to the campaign. Seems a little suspicious. However suspicious the donator shows their support for the running judge by giving him or her money to do so. The author mentions how some states by law prohibit judges from soliciting individuals for campaign funds or at the very least put a limit as to how much an individual can donate. Chief Justice Jefferson goes on to mention that in order for their to be reform in the Judiciary selection one obstacle must be overcome, the voter. The reform that the author seeks is to do away with the campaigning and have judges be selected off of an individual’s merit. He mentions that “since 1940, thirty-seven states have adopted some form of merit selection for their judges” (Jefferson, 2009). The reason for this is because the average citizen does not know a whole lot about the individuals running in the election besides the name on the ballot. An example from the author of how the voter can be an obstacle when it comes to judicial selection is that “some states run on a partisan …show more content…
12 We can eliminate most of that money, and much of the bitterness of the campaigns, by adopting a system in which the state's governor appoints a judge from an independent commission's list. The governor's appointee would serve for a period of years and then stand before the public in an election that tests the incumbent's performance in office. Politics will inevitably enter the process (as it does in all aspects of public life), but a judge's qualifications, temperament, and work ethic would be paramount” (Jefferson,
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.
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.
Since the founding of the American Democracy, partisanship has always been a major problem when it comes to political aspects of the law. The Constitution was designed to implement laws into our country that would make our governing body run smoother with fewer conflicts. However, when dealing with Democracy based on the “people’s word” it is hard to avoid such conflicts. Since each citizen in our country has the right to freedom of speech and thought, the interpretation of various parts of the Constitution have become heavily analyzed when dealing with cases of various crimes that happen in the United States. Each judge on the Supreme Court is entitled to his or her own political ideology so it is a constant debate as to whether a judge has biases on a particular issue based on political views. These biases weave through our justice system creating a disarray of views and arguments that always reflect back on the judges and their presentation, or lack their of, of American ways.
I personally agree with the PBS Frontline episode in that partisan elections can promote corruption in the political world. Thus, I do not believe that partisan elections is a good way of selecting judges. Due to its structure, judges are elected by the people based on their likeability/appeal and political party affiliation, aspects I do not think should be the primary reasons to vote in a judge. Rather, the judge should be judged and elected based on their character and accountability as a political figurehead. Citizens want a reliable, impartial, and sustaining judge who is able to make the right decision based on the laws and current facts provided. How can a judge be impartial when working a case if a lawyer present donated a large sum to his campaign during election? I, along with the public, do not think the judge could be impartial as evident by the poll taken and found that 83% of the public believe judges are influenced by outside campaign contributions (PBS Frontline). This is the same concept found in the baseball reference of allowing an umpire, who has been paid by baseball players, to impartially referee a game (PBS Frontline). In both situations, I do not believe the judges would be able to fairly and neutrally preside over the case, making the system potentially corrupt over time and not a preferred method of selecting judges.
There are three different branches in the government. In these six different scenarios that were given in this prompt. The legislative branch represents the Congress. The congress is led by the House of Representatives and the Senate. What these two figures in this branch do is make the laws of the state. They have the power to pass laws, agree on treaties, and originate on spending bills. In the Executive Branch, it is represented by the president. In this branch the President has the power to propose laws, is in charge of the military, and has the right to veto laws. Last but not least the Judicial Branch, is represented by Federal Judges. They are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. In other words the Judicial Branch enforces the laws and makes sure people are following them as they should be (Branch, no date ).
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.
78 examining issues surrounding the judiciary department of the new government being proposed. In his paper, Hamilton justifies the method of appointing the judges, the tenure by which they are to hold their places, and the partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other. The method of appointing judges was fully discussed in earlier papers, and Hamilton saw no need in reiterating what was already said. Hamilton states that judges appointed are to hold their offices “during good behavior” (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p. A18). Hamilton’s belief that the standard of good behavior for the duration in office was one of the most valued advances in government. Basing a judge’s tenure on good behavior “secures a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p.
The Constitution of the United States, the most remarkable document that was ever created. In this document, it clearly outlines the government that the United States will operate under and gave the leaders specific ways to guide the citizens of the country. For instance, in the Constitution, it established a judicial branch and outlined the laws that it will possessed. According to the Constitution, the judicial branch should act as a system of checks and balances against the other two branches of government. Under these circumstances, there are various courts that are created.
In just, providing better opportunities for the unlawful to become productive citizens of society under monitored and agreed upon circumstances lessen crime and promote a health society. Surprisingly, despite “the image of being “nonpolitical and outside the outside the political arena, the justices serving on the courts and other courtroom personnel are political actors who are involved in the political system in many ways” (Marion, p. one). In other words, judicial officials are entangled in many
The United States Federal system of government has 3 branches that each have different functions when it comes to governing the people within the country. The Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of government are all powerful, just at different times and in different situations. Checks and Balances were created and implemented so that each branch cannot have too much power.
When the Founding Fathers constructed up the Constitution, they made it very clear that there would be three distinct branches of the government. These three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, would all play different roles and have to work together in order to make our country run. While the legislative and executive branches clearly uphold a representative democracy, it has been argued that the judicial branch, containing only unelected officers does not, failing to be anything close to democratic. Even though the Judicial Branch is the least democratic, it plays a vital role in preserving democracy.
Our United States government is composed of three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. These branches uphold checks and balances, as in each branch can check each other to keep the balance in power. For example, the Executive Branch can veto bills from the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch can declare congress made laws unconstitutional. , The Legislative Branch can also check the Executive and Judicial Branches in many ways. These combined with other allowed checks keep the government balanced out and predominantly fair.
It is not without questionable doubt that the United States judiciary branch is in need of a major political reform in terms of the injustice that has become so common within the system. The main purpose of the judicial system is to rightfully resolve disagreements according to law. In 1988, Ronald Kitchen was wrongfully convicted for committing five murders, after serving nearly 21 years in prison in which 13 of them on death row he was released. There was an insufficient amount of evidence against him, however, it was the tortures that he endured for almost two days that coerced false confessions from Kitchen to pleading guilty to the murders. The justice system has lost its true purpose of finding justice for whoever is truly at fault. Instead of truth-seeking, court cases have become more about self-interest and winning. Majority of cases do not even reach trial, before then the guilty are let go free or let off easy while the innocent take guilty pleas in fear of risking loosing at trial. Today’s trials just involve two sides in continuous debate that end in the hope for the judge and jury to be able to emerge the truth. Modern judiciary branch has become so accustomed to the idea that court is a neutral course and the judges
The current president of The United States appoints the federal court system selection process for judges, and official, offices are decided by the senate (Gaines & Miller, 2012). Contrary to the federal judge selection process, they both assert that the state selection processes varies by different forms such as: appointment by the governor then validated by higher chambers of the particular states’ legislation, partisan or nonpartisan elections, or even utilizing The Missouri Plan of the integration of the appointment and election process; enabling the provision of additional opinions expressed by voters. In like manner, Glick & Emmert (1987) state that selection of judges also depend on: place of birth (have to be a United States citizen),
These televised ads frequently air misleading slogans like ‘activist judges’ or ‘imposed verdicts’ just for the sake of the caustic reactions they engender. For instance, a televised ad aired in Illinois during the 2010 election season attacked the then supreme court justice Thomas Kilbride who was running for retention election for siding with felons instead of victims or the law enforcement based solely on the fact the he had questioned the misconducts carried out by the prosecution in some criminal cases. ‘Soft on crimes’ is one of the most popular and polarizing slogans used in these ads against judges. As mentioned above, these ads condemn judges for not being ‘hard on crimes’ further escalating the already existing blood-lust for criminals in society. These ads not only politicize the position of judges, but also significantly diminish the public integrity of judiciary because the public would be more unwilling to accept the verdict imparted by a judge who think is too lenient with criminals. Furthermore, these ads put undue pressure on judges to impart unreasonably harsh punishments to soothe the public hostility against