The Future Of Technology

Firms like Google and Facebook have created profound shifts in the way firms advertise and individuals and organizations communicate. New technologies have fueled globalization, redefined our concepts of software and computing, crushed costs, fueled data-driven decision making, and raised privacy and security concerns.

A crucial argument left unanswered is if state judges should be appointed or elected? Conflicting views raise many questions about how things would change in the court system. According to the article Justice at Stake, “One of the hottest debates in judicial politics today is whether judges should be chosen through competitive election or appointments. Each side has pros and cons”. Many states elect their judges through a merit selection process or appoint them through a process called the partisan election. Texas judges use partisan election where judges are elected by the people. Another question that arises is if Texas should continue using the partisan election to elect their judges when it may seem untrustworthy. A decision could be discussed on the process in electing state judges such as on the topics of improvements, conflictions, and which process seems more reasonable. Improvements can be made to the process of electing state judges… Overall, the appointment of judges varies by state, but looking at Texas’ past and present justice system will determine whether Texas should continue to elect, or switch over to appoint.

A ruling from the court declating partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional will at least create general guidelines for legislators outlining what needs to be done to prevent problems in the

The election of judges can initially affect the way justice in Texas is seen by not balancing the true equality of the justice system. Choosing the incorrect person for a high power position, such as someone determined to play God like Adolf Hitler, can and will affect the community tremendously. Experts from the Center for American Progress say “…judges are expected to be true to the law, not to political parties or campaign contributors.” (Corriher, Web) Other ways it affects Texas is through the jurist’s quality of votes, especially through partisan elections. They may be able to see who they are voting for, but only base votes on what appeals to them. The Center for American progress addresses this by commenting how, “…voters tend to vote for the judicial candidates from the party with which they are affiliated.” (Corriher, Web) Elections can take a toll on Texas

Problems with the Texas judiciary are many – from lack of a coherent court structure to overlapping jurisdictions, the process of judicial selection, the lack of requirements to be a judge, partisan-based elections, and the resulting long ballots, straight-ticket voting or voting simply because of a familiar name. Many judges face no opposition in the elections and substantial campaign contributions earn the judges their place on the bench. There is no recusal policy to intervene in the courtroom when a judge is deciding the verdict for a contributor‟s case. Minorities and women are underrepresented. Texas has many problems with the current judicial system, but there are also unadopted solutions for each and everyone.

During the 1930’s, the community became more and more displeased with the growing role of politics in judicial selection and judicial decision-making. Judges were inundated by outside pressures due to the political features of the election process, and dockets were overcrowded due to time the judges spent campaigning. In November 1940, voters amended the Missouri constitution by adopting the Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan. This plan was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. The acceptance of the plan by initiative referendum resulted from a public repercussion against the widespread abuses of the judicial system by the political machine in Kansas City and by the political control exhibited by ward bosses in St.

B) For the first time since 1971, the Supreme Court is likely going to be composed of a majority of liberal justices due to the vacancy caused by the resignation of Antonin Scalia. To fill this vacancy, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, whose political leanings fall between moderate and liberal, but this nomination has not been approved by Congress due to Senate Republicans believing that the incoming president should fill this vacancy. In addition to Scalia’s vacancy, there are a number of potential vacancies in the upcoming years as three current justices are seventy-eight years of age or older; if these vacancies all occur while a Democrat, such as Hillary Clinton, serves as president, it is likely that all three would be filled by liberal justices, making the court split six to three in favor of liberals. This liberal Supreme Court could make many changes related to prison conditions, the death penalty, campaign financing, and abortion. First, the court would potentially eliminate the use of extended periods of solitary confinement on the grounds that this is in conflict with the Eighth Amendment. Likewise, the court would possibly get rid of the death penalty on the basis that it also violates the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, the court could perhaps work to limit the influence of wealthy

The following report reviews the book, “Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People” By Pat Robertson. The writing takes a hard look at the recent history and current climate within the United States Supreme Court. A great deal of the author’s work centers on the decisions that have taken place during Chief William Rehnquist’s time leading the highest court in the nation. Rehnquist was chief Justice during the infamous Bush v. Gore decision that sided with President George W. Bush resulting in Al Gore losing the election. The book also examines the political machine that determines whether a justice nominee will be appointed and in light of this process, how political control of the legislature

Summary In Mark Tushnet’s book “A Court Divided,” Tushnet illustrates how the Supreme Court’s ideals have changed with every new president, cultural movement and Death of a fellow court member. We can see the change as Goldwater leads into Regan, and so on with every republican president up to present day. The Court’s Republican majority doesn't always agree on every issue, such as on issues like abortion or homosexual rights, the opinions were split between the harsher, older Republicans, and the softer, younger Republicans.

The state of Maryland has been battling unconstitutional gerrymandering for years now. According to Washington Post writer Robert Barnes, recently the Supreme Court granted Steve Shapiro a Maryland man continuance in the lawsuit regarding the state’s congressional redistricting being unconstitutionally gerrymandered. Lower courts were proved wrong by the Supreme Court for attempting to dismiss the lawsuit. Maryland democrats adjusted district lines in favor of their political party to win over seven of the eight congressional districts. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s spokeswoman stated that the lawsuit shines light on the political influence taking place when redistricting occurs. The case is officially

The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

In a problem filled world that seems to be spiraling out of control, America cannot stand to be divided as black and white or liberal and conservative any longer if we want to succeed. The moderate ideology will provide the compromise this country needs. Three issues that are at the height of controversy include the LGBTQ community, abortion, and foreign aid. On June 6, 2015, same sex marriage was legalized by the federal government. This engendered the huge recognition of the LGBTQ community as it was thrust into the spotlight. 4% of the adult population identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual in addition to the 700,000 transgender individuals. Currently, the North Carolina law that restricts people to a public bathroom based off their gender at birth, is still in dispute. Liberals believe that it is the government's

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

Also the liberal people in North Carolina needs to see what they are causing and see how many crimes that going to happen since they want the HB2 law passed. The crime rate will be going way up if the HB2 law is passed and the liberal people will regret passing the HB2 law. Also if the HB2 law is passed people will lie about what gender they are just to go in the other bathroom to try to look at little girls are little boys and that is very wrong and that’s what the liberal people

Circuit has been simulated in federal courts around the nation. Presently, Obama has had two hundred and eighty judges established, which signifies a third of the federal judiciary. When President Obama took office, Republicans controlled ten of the thirteen circuit court appeals. However, Democratic appointees now govern a majority in the circuit. Since federal judges have life term, most of President Obama’s judges will remain serving after he leaves office. Likewise, according to the Obama brief article, “President Obama took office after years of intense conservative focus on the courts limiting issues like abortion rights, ending racial preferences, and lowering barriers between church and state.” However, President Obama has minimized a political battle with conservatives on these issues. .”(The Obama brief, www.newyorker.com) Furthermore, another important group of judges to acknowledge is openly gay judges. According to the Obama brief article, President Obama stated in an interview with Jeffery Toobin that “when I first took office there was only one openly gay judge. His administration succeeded in adding ten additional openly gay judges.” This is one of the major accomplishments of President