The First Method Or Mode For The Appointment Of Judges

Selection of judicial personnel differ amongst states in the united States, as all the states have their unique criterion of selection governing how they fill their state and local judiciaries. The five main methods are: Partisan elections, Nonpartisan elections, Legislative elections, gubernatorial appointment, and assisted appointment.

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.

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.

Texas legislative branch should change the way judges in Texas are appointed. Partisan trends are an undependable and mendacious method in order to choose such an arbiter of equity as a judge. The system in which the partisans elect judges in some lights may be a good thing. However, the way in which it is gone about is flawed. Take for example the fact that these judges must chose a party. So the voters are given a ballot with a number of judges’ names which have party labels directly affixed to them. It doesn’t make sense that in the court room one judge would have a dissimilar point of outlook than a judge from another party. Regardless of which Party you are affiliated with the laws that the citizens are to abide by are exactly that and have no affiliation with a specific party. Whether or not a judge is Democratic or Republican should not matter because the jurisdiction ought to remain the same. There are way too many deserving judges out there who get thrown out of these elections way to much just because of a party label. When a voter looks at a ballot it is very likely that some of them are voting because it’s the right thing to do. Nobody is to say all of these voters attentively follow politics other than watching a few presidential debates. So there’s a chance that a lot of undeserving judges are ignorantly getting elected in result of a specific party label that voter identifies with or simply because that person’s name stands out.

- In this writing assignment I will discuss the judicial selection process in the state of Virginia and the state of New Jersey. I will talk about the specific qualifications needed for each state. I will present a brief overview of the steps an individual has to learn to become an attorney, which can contribute to a judgeship. I will also discuss the step of removing a judge from office.

Bailey, Kamoie, and Maltzma’s article answers the question to whether Solicitors General (S.G.) influence Supreme Court justices to behave differently than they would like. The article argues that unlike some studies that assert that S.G.’s influence the justices decisions, the reality is somewhat contradictory. They claim that Justices are more sympathetic to motions from the S.G. when both the justice and S.G. are “ideologically proximate” or when the Solicitors General’s motion is conflicting to his own ideological tendency. According to them, “justices will find a solicitor general’s information more credible when the solicitor general and the justice are ideologically congruent or when the signal from the S.G. is ideologically counter to his typical policy views”. (p 72) That means justices are sympathetic to the SG’s signals under two circumstances: when their ideology is close to the S.G.’s ideology or when the S.G. files a motion that opposes his own ideological tendency.

Carrubba’s article focuses on which justices on the court as the most influential. It was initially believed that the court’s median justice overall was the most influential, of which Carrubba and others disagree, hypothesizing that the median justice on the majority is. Carrubba and other’s utilize unconventional methods in order to test their hypothesis, that being the fact that, when deciding a case, justices must resolve a concrete dispute and that those unsatisfied with the majority ruling are able to write a concurrence or dissent. In testing their model, they explain that a justice concurs only if their own ideology strays too far from the majority and will concur otherwise. The dependent variable was the decision by a justice to file a special or general concurrence while the key independent variable was justice's ideological distance to the coalition median, the Court's median, and the opinion writer, and an indicator for majority and plurality opinions. The justices’ ideologies were gauged using Martin-Quinn scores as well. Overall, their results

The President of the United States, as stated by the Supreme Court, has the jurisdiction to appoint supreme court justices based on their own interpretation of what will benefit the country the most. In addition, United State’s citizens have already casted their vote. Because of this, the citizens have put their faith in him to complete all this duties effectively, which includes the appointment of justices when one resigns or dies. Although, it is necessary for there to be checks and balances with the senate put in place for such an important appointment so that one branch of the government does not overstep their responsibilities and become too powerful.

Appointing judges is more feasible that electing them. Judges should make decisions based on rule of law not based on the political party that they might be affiliated with. I understand that judges are appointed by executives in the government that have political ties. However, most of these executives will research the candidates based on their background and records. Elected judges must keep people happy in order to be re-elected. They will therefore often do what the majority of people in their jurisdiction would think is best to keep them happy. Unfortunately, sometimes being a good judge means making decisions that don’t make people happy. Judges should be selected with the intention of being objective and non-partisan, not elected to

Judicial selection is the concept of how judges are selected: either as a form of partisan election or the appointment of a nonpartisan judge. With the help of Andrew Hassen reasons “...that elected judges are more predictable than their appointed counterparts.” (Hassen, 1999). Elected judges are more predictable because they are more likely to rule on a decision based perspective on what the voters wanted when the judge was initially elected. Hassen even makes a further argument that “...if the institution that promotes judicial independence increases uncertainty, more litigation should be found where judges are appointed” (p. 232) The reason for this logic is that people believe that they have a better chance of their side to win given that the judge is supposedly doesn’t have any inclination over one side over the other and they are wiser/professional than others. However, he does note that “As they [judges] hand down rulings over a long span of time; consequently their decisions become more predictable.” (Hassen, 1999, 206) A sense of comfortability comes when people notice patterns in judge decisions and the social and political environment. From his study, he concludes “that judicial independence has a net positive effect on traditional and uncertainty and litigation rates in state high courts, with appointed justices having 40% more utility regulation cases and 10% more cases generally than elected

Relating to the point of political sentiment, the system for judicial appointment in England and Wales has also been subject to criticism with regards to the assessment procedure. One aspect that was heavily criticised is confidentiality and efforts to conceal who and what the assessment involves . In 1996, Anne Owers pointed out that “There is a need to move it away from the civil service into a more accountable system." To echo the collective opinion of many other critics, Owers scrutinises the rigid approach of judicial appointment and highlights the tendency for the Lord Chancellor to appoint clones . Another valid argument is that the lack of transparency provided by senior legal figures and judges assessing candidates, make judicial appointment

Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg., Justice N. L. Untwalia, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice P. S. Kailasam, Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud.

Thus, in the demand of the new system, the settlement at the end illustrates the relationship between kinship and politics, which is that the establishment of court and the introduction of jury has its own political influence. On the other hand, when the jury cannot achieve the same opinions, the kinship will be considered as an important factor as Apollo had mentioned

The Supreme Court of India has adopted a forward-looking approach since last few years, particularly having regard to the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country. In fact there are two kinds of approaches which characterise the functioning of the highest Court in every

Abstract: The Constitution of India has defined and declared the common goal for its citizens as- “to secure to all the citizens of India, Justice-social, economic and political, liberty; equality and fraternity.” The eternal value of constitutionalism is the rule of law which has three facets i.e., rule by law, rule under law and rule according to law. The concept of Lok-Adalat fulfills the desires of constitution drafters in all possible ways. Behind the concept of Lok- Adalat is the ancient concept of settlement of dispute through Mediation, Negotiation or through other arbitral process popularly known as decision of ‘Nyay- Panch’ or ‘People’s Court’.