Process Essay: Judging The 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.

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

Under Partisan elections, Judges are chosen by the general population and candidates are voted for alongside political affiliations. In New York for example, all trial court judges partake in partisan elections with the exception of family courts judges. In Nonpartisan elections: Judges are elected by the population, without any knowledge of their political affiliation. In Legislative elections, selection

In the case of merit elections a blue-ribbon committee of lawyers and nonprofessional people select the names of the judges that go before the governor. This way allows for non-partisan selection process. There is also the option that was recently proposed to “appoint-elect-retain” where the governor would appoint the judge with a 2/3 confirmation vote from the state Senate so they would not take office until the Senate met at it usually hearing time. After which time when they were up for re-election they would then run for in a contested non-partisan

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

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.

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

In Texas, the Judicial system is made of up judges whose jurisdiction ranges from municipal, county, probate, district, and justice of the peace courts, each of which undergoes an election process, one which is the same for each judge, expect for the municipal. An advocate for another system, Wallace Jefferson, firmly believes that an appointment system should take place for all judges to assure that those who are put into a position are done so based off of merit and qualification. However, given the current system, judges, per say those who wish to serve on a district court, must adhere to these requirements. Judges must be a U.S. citizen, a resident of Texas, have been practicing law as a lawyer or state judge for at least four years, be between the ages of 25 and 75 and be a resident of their respective judicial district for two years, minimum.

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.

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.

This leads to “inevitable bias being introduced into our political and legal cultures” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). Because these judges are coming from similar backgrounds, they share perspectives that consequently lead to the suppression of those whose interests are not “adequately recognized or supported by the dominant, mainstream ideologies” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). It is not hard to understand why some fear a Charter that is so hard to change is violating the principles of democracy. Judges, in no sense, are in the position of moral authority nor are they experts in areas typically concerned with by the government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 543). The judiciary is the epitome of contrasting notions when it comes to self-governing, the heart of democracy. Allowing unelected judges to overrule decisions of legislators is problematic for all of society and represents the abandonment of self-government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 541).

It is the week before a high school dance and, as a boy, you have no idea what to do. You want to look your best. in order to make a great first impression on your friends and to the ladies. In order to look “frosh,” you have to plan ahead of time and make sure that you are already looking your best. What you wear to the dance and how you act determines your total outlook and how you want to be perceived as. It is critical that you know where to shop for clothes.

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

Being able to elect judges to the bench provides judges to be more accessible to its citizens. This also allows for citizens to vote for a judge who share their own political and philosophical views (Souders, 2006), which can be beneficial to them. Partisan and non-partisan elections highly favour judicial accountability. Judicial accountability is where judges are held accountable for their decisions and actions, while also being accountable to its citizens both on and off the bench. According to Souders, “making judges directly accountable to the people allows the electorate to define the limits of acceptable judicial conduct, and promotes discussion about evolving standards of judicial conduct” (Souders, 2006). Accountability then creates a more democratic judicial system. This democratic judicial system allows for citizens to directly vote for the removal of a judge, and for a judge to be voted onto the bench based on a majoritarian vote (Souders, 2006). Both partisan and non-partisan judicial elections are beneficial to democracy, by promoting a more participatory democracy, meaning citizens participate in political decisions and policies directly. Unfortunately, a more participatory democracy impacts judicial voting pattern. Judges at the State Supreme Court level are a complete separate entity from all other levels of government in the United States due to the fact that they are elected into judicial position, but they are not independent from the citizens the court serves (Souders,

In the case that politicians do not live up to the ideals and criteria they were chosen for, a merit of democracy is that it allows the citizenry to punish these officials – not necessarily through extreme forms like impeachment, but perhaps by simply electing someone else in the forthcoming election. While, as previously addressed, not all participants in the election process vote based on truthful information, some citizens do. It must be remembered that not only those in authority