Political Influence On Judges

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

There are two major factors that affect the confirmation process of a president’s nominees; one is party affiliation. Party affiliation is very important when the Senate is confirming a nominee, because Senate confirms nominees by a ⅔ vote. This could be very crucial to the president and his or her nominee, because if the majority of the Senate is part of the opposing party, this becomes difficult for the president to get his nominee confirmed. The second political factor is qualification to become a judge or justice. The Senate does not want an unqualified judge who does not know what he or she is doing. It is important to the Senate to approve someone who has experience in the judicial field than someone who has no experience at all. The

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 think judges should be decided by partisan vote. They are very high in rank and should be on the ballot when the governor or senators are being elected. This would be like killing two birds with one stone and it would probably cost less. As a result time and money would be saved. That is why I think they should be decided by

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.

This is not to say that they do not have the intent to try to rule neutrally, or that the oath of office taken is cast by the wayside like refuse. Rather, I purport that the very process under which they have risen to be considered for the bench is a political one, and indeed makes them a part

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.

In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature

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

The United States president, Barack Obama, nominated a longtime federal judge Merrick Garland to take the position of the Supreme Court and replace the former justice, Antonin Scalia. Merrick Garland’s past decisions related to different issues had made him the talk of the town. Although Garland has a 19 year record on the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, this does not lend him to a fast evaluation (Mcshane).

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

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.

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

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.

Obviously, when looking at only two issues, there will be limitations to the conclusions we are able to draw. These limitations warrant a broader investigation into other politicized issues. The two issues we focus on are highly politicized, with abortion arguably being the most politicized topic in our country, so our research cannot extend to all Supreme Court issues, especially those which are not as politically polarizing. However, it is reasonable to expect that other high profile issues such as the death penalty or gay marriage have similar results to what we discovered for abortion and affirmative action.