The Political Nature Of The Judiciary

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.

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.

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

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

This is not to say that they do not have the intent to try to rule neutrally, or that the oath of office taken is cast by the wayside like refuse. Rather, I purport that the very process under which they have risen to be considered for the bench is a political one, and indeed makes them a part

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 recurring theme that is explored throughout the topic of conflict with the courts is politics and power. After Republicans gained control of the executive and legislative branches of government, the judiciary is regarded with suspicion for harboring Federalist beliefs. After Jefferson was inaugurated, his supporters in Congress launched a attack on these judges, by attempting to repeal the Judiciary Act. The Marbury v. Madison case resulted in a conflict over constitutionality, making a historic moment when the court ruled that although Madison had to perform his official duty of transmitting appointments, the Court had no authority to make him do it. The Court concluded that Congress exceeded had exceeded its

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.

There are currently eighty-nine district courts within the fifty states, ninety-four total when the territories are included. There are thirteen judicial circuits, each with their own court of appeals. Although the Constitution creates Article III judges, it does not state any specific requirements that an individual must meet to become a federal judge. Due to this gray area, Congress and the Department of Justice have developed their own informal criteria when reviewing a nominee’s qualifications.

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

The Judiciary Act of 1789 set up the "federal court system with limited power" (Oakes et al.,, 2015, p. 222). It set up the Supreme Court as the top, or head, of the three-teired Judicial branch. Further, it let the federal government set up laws based on the Constitution. The Constitution differed significantly from the British conventional laws and practices the colonies were so desperate to escape. The federal judiciary wasn't welcomed at first by some of the Founding Fathers. There was a fear that the federal government would become tyrannical, and would override the individual state powers, as well as individuals rights and freedoms. The colonies, after being treated the way they were under British law, wanted to make sure that nothing like that could happen under their new government.

You might have thought the United States of America was perfect and a no conflict country at the beginning. In reality, it wasn’t, not even close. There were many things that had to be changed or tweaked a bit throughout time.

There are currently three procedures that are used to select judges. These methods are as follows: executive appointment, election, and merit selection. The goal is to use a process that picks the best judge or the most qualified and experienced. Each process has its pros and cons but there is one that easily stands out from the others.

The US court system consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The trial court is the first to hear the facts of a case and has original jurisdiction. The appellate court hears cases whose resolution is disputed by the losing party in the trial court. The supreme or high court hears cases whose outcome is disputed by the losing party in the appellate court. The supreme or high court chooses which cases warrant