The Election Of Judges And Legislatures

The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.

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.

Judicial power is given to the Supreme Court. All nine federal judges are appointed by the President and serve "during good behavior," usually meaning for life. The judges cannot be removed from office except for criminal behavior or malfeasance. This makes them less vulnerable to political pressure and outside influence. The main feature of the independent role for the courts lies in their power to interpret the Constitution. They review the "constitutionality" of laws and executive orders. There are

State court judges are selected in a variety of ways, including being selected by the governor of that State in which they reside or by the state legislature. In some cases, judges are able to run for election if they want to be a judge.

I completely agree with what you are saying I think that we do need to be able to vote for a judge as we do with an official. Do you think you could explain to some of our readers what judicial review is?

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

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

The power that the legislative branch holds over the judicial branch is that even though the president gets to pick the judge, the legislative branch gets to approve the judge. And like with the president the legislative branch/ congress also has the power to impeach the judges.

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

Many consider the election of judges through a partisan system is beneficial to serve the public. Partisan

Bringing in new judges will allow for different thought patterns and views on certain problems. In addition, “a different perspective can permit you to more fully understand the arguments that are before you and help you articulate your position in a way that everyone will understand” (Sotomayor, 2016). Furthermore, newer judges would relieve others of the concern that the judges are unfortunately unable to keep up with the current society and their needs. As a result, newer judges will be able to notice the issues that the current society may be needed to be

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.

An important consideration throughout the decision of having judiciary review was appointing the judges and deciding on the tenure in office. There was high concern about these judges being unelected and serving for life. People thought this would lead to them being more corrupt and less likely to base their decisions around what the people really want and need. There would not be a huge check on them, and they would never have to face re-election, so would not have to focus on keeping everyone happy with them in their position. However, Hamilton argued that being unelected and serving for life was beneficial for these judges. Serving for life provides them with the time and ability to become experts in what they do. If they had to be switched out every so often, we would have judges becoming experts just to be kicked out of their position and replaced with new, less informed judges who would have to start the process of becoming an expert all over again. In keeping them unelected, we avoid the influence of factions or other groups that could sway their, or the public’s, decisions on policies and who to elect into office. They also will not be affected by the comings and goings of political parties, and will place them above any current “trending” social issues. They do have to serve under good behavior, however, lest they be impeached. Other

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.

When a judge is selected through executive appointment, the governor or legislature from the state they are in will choose them from a large selection of possible candidate. Traditionally, this process gives all of the power to appoint a judge solely to the governor. This process is the least effective of all three. There are zero states who still solely practice this method traditionally and there is a good reason for that. Essentially, the governor of a state can purely pick any eligible candidate. A governor could appoint someone that would help them further their political agenda. This is not a reasonable way to select a good candidate. There has to be regulations and systems in place that choose the most qualified candidate. Many states utilize executive appointment but have added methods to keep the governor in check. For example, in New Jersey a governor can