Jefferson describes the elections of judges in Texas as “Broken”. That rings true because it seems that Texas is always shifting from one political party to another whenever the judges should be considered neutral. It is one thing for presidential and governor candidates to represent one party. They have specific laws that they want to put in place and most align with a specific party. However, the judiciary system should not have a political party attached to the candidates when it comes time for the civilians to vote. The judiciary should not be dominated by a political party because then it is not true justice. They will always have a specific side they would want to favor, however, there should be more of a balance. It’s completely over powering to have the masses elect judges when they have no knowledge of the candidate’s accomplishments. Overall, a decrease of people running for those spots would be easier for …show more content…
The way that the people vote to people judges in the court is completely biased. The judges all have sponsors from the two major political parties and they are affiliated with those parties on the ballet. Every election season will be decided on which political party is doing better than the other on a national level. The example giving in the article is proof of that. One election season only the Democrats will be elected. However, the next season would be a repeat with the Republicans in the position of power now. It seems like a constant shift of power from one extreme to the other. It causes the Texas’s judicial branch to be ineffective and unbalanced. If the government were to remove those affiliation next to the running judge’s name, people would be forced to research the candidates and choose which ones would be best on the court. That would be more effective instead of choosing people that have yet to earn that position of
In Ohio, "nonpartisan" elections vote justices into office. However, Preceeding these elections are partisan primaries, and each justice must campaign. If the justice wins the election, the justice will want to be re-elected as well. If they want their party to vote for them, they have no choice but to side with the party on issues, instead of interpreting the constitution as it is written. For these reasons, the Missouri Plan should be implemented in Ohio to prevent justices from acting as activists, and to keep justices from excessive partisan influence.
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.
In order for the Supreme Court to be democratically legitimate should be both politically and socially representative. In a diverse country such as the USA it’s extremely difficult to be politically representative however the Court is even less socially representative. There is currently and has only ever been 1 member of the supreme court who is of Hispanic origin compared to the approximately 17% of the population.
On September 17, 1787, the U.S. constitution was signed. The U.S. constitution is a document that has a set of rules, guidelines, and principles that governs our nation. This constitution is the oldest written national document and has had 27 amendments. The current Texas constitution is the seventh document written for Texas. The previous six were all when Texas was still apart of Mexico. The current constitution hasn’t been revised since 1876, which makes it the longest state constitution in the United States.
In Texas, the Judicial Branch of government contains five different levels of judges; however each distinct type adheres to different qualifications. The lowest level of judges, Justice of the Peace courts, requirements include the completion of a 40 hour course pertaining to their responsibilities within a year of their election, and to continue serving their 4 year term, each year the elected Justice of the Peace official is to complete a similar 20 hour course. Next is the Municipal Courts, whose requirements are set by the people of the city and term length is also 4 years. Succeeding is County level courts which include Constitutional County Courts, Statutory County Court and Probate Courts. For Constitutional County Courts, the term length is 4 years and the only qualification is that the candidate be “well informed in the law of the state”.
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
1. Should the Texas Legislature continue to serve as a part-time lawmaking body, only meeting in regular session for 140 days every two years, or should it change to a full-time body meeting in regular session each year?
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.
This constitution of United Mexican States provided for a very weak national government and the powers of the government and its states are not defined which caused increasing tension between each state.
The government of the state of Texas is a difficult and complicated institution that is composed of many different levels. The question comes in to everyone's mind at one time or another whether or not to trust the government. It could be that people believe that the officials will take advantage of their power, or simply people don't like the idea of being controlled by someone who is not a family member or friend. To avoid this centralized power, the government is divided into stages and this is a reasonable ground for trusting the government. Government runs this state and it does deserve to be trusted.
In 1822, Stephen F. Austin established one of the first courts in Texas and appointed a provisional justice of peace. Since Texas was a part of Mexico at the time, the Mexican governor replaced the justice of peace with three elected officials. (Utexas) Soon after Independence, the republic of Texas under the 1836 Constitution, established a supreme court and allowed Congress to create inferior courts. Judges in such courts were to be elected by Congress. Counties, at the time, had County and Justice of Peace courts, whose judges were popularly elected. With the entrance of Texas into the Union and the adoption of numerous constitutions during the period, Texas retained a similar judicial structure. The current 1876 Constitution created a
Constitutions are a necessary tool in keeping a Nation running in a smooth manner. One is also necessary in keeping the components, which are states, running in an ordered way. The constitution of Texas has a long historical trail from 1827 to 1876 and there are many events that occurred during this time period. The current Texas constitution has many strengths and weaknesses and there have been revisions made to this document. This document limits the way government can be involved in certain problems that arise in Texas. The Texas constitution is a document with positives and negatives but it is definitely a necessity.
The Texas judicial system has been called one of the most complex in the United States, if not the world. It features five layers of courts, several instances of overlapping jurisdiction, and a bifurcated appellate system at the top level. The structure of the system is laid out in Article 5 of the Texas Constitution.
The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal