Texas Judges Research Paper

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

“Humbly invoking the blessing of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas do ordain and establish this Constitution”—those are the opening words of the great Texas Constitution with which Texans authorize the state government to govern them. In history, whenever it becomes necessary and proper for a central power, either at the local or national level, to be ordained to govern a mass population a constitution is regarded as an emphatic “pre-requisite to statehood” (Tushnet, 1) . For centuries constitutions have been drafted by nations all over the world functioning as a social contract between the government and the governed and as a supreme law by which everyone within the nation’s borders would have to answer to. Constitutions not only

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.

In the nineteen thirties, the people of Missouri would pick judges and eventually politicians realized they could buy judges. They would buy votes especially an American politician Tom Pendergast, would try to pack the court with those who agreed with his political ideas. Until merit selection, the lawyers went against it and wanted a better way for judicial selection. Both Democrats and Republicans worked together and campaigned without financial interest. Leading to the Missouri plan where the judge is now chosen by merit and qualifications.

While H.B. 1336 is substantially better than the current system, it is not perfect. One shortcoming is that it only applies to the appellate level courts, which means that the majority of judges in the state will still be elected. While this is not ideal, cases decided by these elected judges can be appealed to the appointed courts, which should mitigate the negative influence of elected judges. Also, from a practical standpoint, requiring the nominating commission to review applications for local courts is probably both inefficient and unnecessary. Ideally a second wave of reforms would eventually establish regional nominating commissions and do away with judicial elections entirely, but it makes sense to see how the proposal works on the statewide level before implementing a localized version.

The United States government consists of three branches, with an important Supreme Court made up of nine justices. Hence, when Antonin Scalia died, it only makes sense that President Obama appoints another judge to fill in the spot. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution elucidates this power by stating “[the president] shall nominate, by and with [a]dvice and [c]onsent of the Senate… [j]udges of the supreme Court.” In the periodical, “Obama Taps Merrick Garland as Supreme Court Nominee,” this clause demonstrates its power in two manners. First, Obama decides to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Second, in the article, the Arkansas Attorney General paraphrases the Constitution and states that the “ Senate has an equal

When a judicial vacancy occurs, the Presidents and their advisors consider factors such as: geographical, religious, racial, or gender representation a candidate would bring to the Court, political ideology, qualifications, and whether the nominee would change the ideological balance of the court among others. Of these factors, political ideology is the most important factor during the nomination and confirmation

However, the process of selecting judges largely indicates a clear politicization of the judiciary, particularly in recent decades, which explains the political and ideological considerations in the judges' behavior and attitudes towards public policy issues.

The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition (Supreme Court, 2011). Justices are appointed by the President of the United States, and must be confirmed by the United States Senate (Welch, 2014). This is done following a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The process is very political and one thing I see to fix the process is the conformations. It is time to create a more meaningful confirmation process. It is now normal that at their confirmation hearings, nominees

In today’s society many Americans do not know much about the role the U.S. Supreme Court plays in the functioning of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court hears and decides on certain appeal cases from lower courts involving laws that challenge the Constitution. The Supreme Court consists of one Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices who current members are John G. Roberts, Jr.; Antonin Scalia; Anthony M. Kennedy; Clarence Thomas; Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Stephen G. Breyer; Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.; Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The concept behind diminishing lifetime tenures for Supreme Court Justices and initiating term limits has become popularized and is causing a major stir in the political world. The resounding goal of this research paper was to determine what would benefit the Supreme Court best and understanding the flaws behind lifetime appointments. Full comprehension of both arguments aided in an unambiguous agreement that life tenures are an outdated principle and the older justices are negatively affecting the Judicial Branch as a whole. While many cons for Justices serving for life are abstruse, when analyzed collectively they greatly overshadow any positives supporting life tenures. Research concluded swift changes need to be instated and upon President

No one has the gut to even try and become one, because its also stressful as well, its also a big challenge to become one. Becoming a judge is a hard task, it’s a big responsibility. No one has the strength to just become one, that’s why I think it’s the best for all judged that have experiences and that knows what there doing, they should get elected. Because they also know how to choose good candidates. Therefore I personally think they should be

Judicial selection and appointment is important in securing an independent judiciary as seen by the politicisation of the judiciary. In the UK and US the system of electing Justices is highly politicised. In the US it is ultimately up to the President to choose a Justice who fits his political ideology and philosophy. There is a clear divide between Justices nominated by Republican Presidents (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) and those nominated by Democrats President (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan). Presidents seek to nominate Justices who share similar political views. Republicans tend to nominate strict constructionists who favour a more narrow reading of the Constitution and Democrats tend to appoint loose constructionists who believe in a broad interpretation of the Constitution. Elena Kagen received only a single Republican vote and Sonia Sotomayor did not receive any. It is unlikely that the Republicans considered them to be underqualified, and more likely that they

While the majority of the nations in the world uses a meritocratic system of appointment of judges by an executive body, the US and Bolivia are the only two modern-day democracies to elect majority of their judges. 38 states in the US choose their high court judges through some form of election1. The candidates running for judicial offices in the United States either explicitly declare their political affiliations or are endorsed by a political party without having their party named on the ballot. Although this ensures that the judge thus elected is accountable to the people and not the person who appoints him, the election process is unduly politicized and the judge is influenced by his campaign contributors which often leads to biased judgement. Is the election of judges corrupting our justice system?

“Recorder Philip Cattan, a respected Manchester barrister who sits as a judge part-time, was seen to ‘nod off’ as ran under-aged victim answered questions from the defense” (Ollie Mcateer September 21st 2015). The Supreme Court is a very important part to our U.S government. The court decides the legality of our laws, and how lives are effected by them: therefore we need to have active and healthier judges that have some experience and know what they are doing. There are many reasons why term limits should be put into action.