Justice Penny White of Tennessee, lost her retention election in 1996 after the Tennessee

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) held that the discretion to impose the death sentence for specific crimes was to be bi-furcated into two separate trials. The first to determine guilt or innocence; the second to determine the aggravating and mitigating factors. The State of Oceana adopted the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court in People v. Wende, 600 P. 2d 1071 (Cal: Supreme Court 1979) In

Thomas became in many ways an opposite to the first female Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, nominated by Reagan because of urging of the court to “rethink vast areas of the law while O’Connor wanted to decide cases narrowly, one by one”. (pg.123-124). O’Connor pulled further also typically wrote a separate opinion of her own and refused to join Thomas even when they were on the same side of a decision.

In the State of Texas, we have a rather odd way of selecting which judges will and will not be able to have a job in the State of Texas. The way we select them is the same way that we decide who is going to be the governor of the State of Texas, we elected them. There are many flaws with choosing election as the way of picking who will be judges. Some of the flaws are that there will possibly be a lack of minority chosen, voters tend to know little to none information about the local election let alone the candidates up for judges, and finally people contributing to campaigns. While few people know that this how we elected judges in Texas, but even fewer realize the consequences the will continue to pile up if we do not do something to put an end to this ludicrous way of choosing an influential position of office.

Clements was a Republican and like the Democratic governors who came before him, he appointed judges who were affiliated with the Republican Party (Champagne and Harpham 259). During this time the popularity of the Republican Party was also on the rise, which helped to create competition during judicial elections. However, this also brought changes to elections, such as having judicial candidates switch party affiliation under that assumption that it would help increase their chances of getting and maintaining a job as a judge. Another change in these elections was the raising of money. Something that wasn’t a large concern when competition was nearly nonexistent, but is now needed so that voters’ attention can be brought towards the candidates (Champagne and Harpham 260). Perhaps the biggest change that occurred, and arguably the most damaging, was that these elections became highly partisan. Which has resulted in citizens voting for a particular candidate based on nothing but their party affiliation. This has led to unqualified people being chosen to serve as judges solely because they are Republican (Champagne and Harpham 261-262). For this reason judicial elections often get

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.

What is also interesting to note, is that the balance of power and who ultimately gets seated on the Supreme court is decided on Capitol Hill. Up until this point in the review, there has been very little discussed about how the legislature plays into the decision process of how the justices are seated (Robertson, 2004). However, as it is critical for a sitting president to have a Supreme Court sided towards the president’s political affiliation, it is equally as important to have a legislature that will also seek to have the nominee on the panel of justices. The author suggests, that this hope is quickly diminished when during the presidency, the legislature’s majority is the opposing party. The author does an excellent job in communicating this dynamic in reflecting on President Clinton’s attempt to have his justice nominees appointed during his time in office (Burke, 1993). The issues of getting nominees approved was also driven by a number of critical turnovers within the office of the presidency. This point underscores that lobbying is not limited to companies and organizations but to the power of the president to push justice nominations through the system (p.44). Finally, another aspect that was discussed that hindered the process was that President Clinton did not hold his ground and in each instance where he faced resistance, the president would remove the candidate presenting another with the hope that the new nominee would pass the nominee process

As humans we can’t just escape from our own personal opinions and go purely off of an old description of what our founding fathers wanted this country to be. Justices are supposed to be secular and go only by the constitutionality of a law or situation. Conservative justices regularly vote in favor of Conservative opinions, and Liberal justices vote in favor of Liberal opinions, whether or not either opinion actually coincides with the constitution. Connection

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

Since the creation of the judiciary there have been many modifications that have occurred. To start as it talks about in our textbook, justices began serving on the Supreme Court for a much longer term. Until recently, most justices were confirmed by the Senate, and from 1947 to 1985, almost all persons nominated to be a federal appeals court judge were approved. But of late, these nominations have had a less certain reception in the Senate. In 1986 President Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia for the Supreme Court, the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 98 to 0, but one year later, when he nominated Robert Bork the Senate rejected him. The different parties in the Senate try to block the vote based on the political party of the current President. In the textbook, it talks about how much harder the Senate is to confirm the nominees by a high yes

The courts stated juries were allotted too much power in sentencing, hence prompting the racial bias that dismounted in not only the Furman v Georgia case, but a multitudinous amount of cases in the south. In a 5-4 decision, it was concluded that the implementation of Furman’s sentencing was cruel and unusual. Two justices concluded the death penalty was unconstitutional, while three stated that the method in which the sentencing was being utilized, made it unconstitutional. Justice Douglas also observed that not only were death penalties given to the poor, uneducated, and sick minorities, but that they had been taking place due to miscommunication and lack of guidance and understanding of the law, which furthermore concluded in the use of preconceived notions and prejudices that guided the jurors in

They said that it was disproportionally applied to the “poor and despised” that it was applied in an arbitrary and capricious fashion.” Justice Douglas was the man that came up with the idea to review the historic of the death sentence penalty for both America and England. This justice noticed that the laws was extremely unfair because it was applied only to the minorities, the outcast and the smaller population in the country. He decide that the death penalty was unusual and against Gods Plan. Furman centered on the convictions and death sentences of 3 African American men. His case ended changing the way they see each individual case. (4. Law Cornell

Because it is a primary race, to cast a vote for either judicial candidate, voter must request a Republican ballot. And, because there are no candidates on the Democratic ticket this election, Hyde encouraged even Democrats to take out a Republican ballot, cast a vote, have a voice and then, come the next primary cycle, “You have a chance to go right back to the Democratic Party.”

The pros of lifetime appointment for judges are important. Unlike the rest us, supreme court justices do not have to worry about their actions costing them their jobs. They are able to go against the wishes of high ranking officials and they people that pay them. Without fear of repercussions

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

     A very recent example of the politics involved in Supreme Court appointments was the 2001 election. It was assumed that the next president would probably be making three new appointment to the Supreme Court. Because of this fact, the president could use this