The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Elections

In partisan elections, the party affiliation of the candidate is indicated on the ballot. This election method is constantly criticized and is only used by a few states when selecting judges, Texas being one of them. Several questions come to mind when discussing partisan elections causing many to believe that it's an inappropriate way to choose judges. when citizens elect judges in partisan elections problems arise when considering campaign contributions, lack of minority representation on the bench, perceptions of fairness, and lack of knowledge on the part of the voters.

In the following article, Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear, discuss how the Supreme Court of the United States had tied on a case about President Obama’s Immigration Plan. This article gives a glimpse of how the judicial branch is a very important factor of the United States Government. This article reflects how the power of the judicial branch because it shows how the Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress. In the following article it displays how the Supreme Court can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. This article discusses the fact that their are many illegal

This paper will argue why Chief Justice Rehnquist’s quote on the ever expanding authority of the Supreme Court of the United States is an accurate depiction of the social adoption of a third legislative branch. Through the power of judicial review, the Court has been granted legistoral authority that was not constitutionally delegated to the Court, and with this new authority the institutional practices of obtaining a seat will be examined. This questioning stems from the fact that a court of nine unelected citizens have similar legislative authority of those elected to seats of authority in the Executive and Legislative branch. Yet, while this may be deemed undemocratic, it will be made clear that the institution of an unelected Court is essential to preserving the Constitution in a way that a democratically elected court is not possible of doing. While the Court has been adapted in a way that varies from the founders’ intent, it is evident that the citizens of the country have adopted the idea of a more legislative court, and that the preservation of this new Court is essential.

Judicial deliberations are different from that of the legislature because judiciaries at the federal level do not represent constituents or seek to be reelected. Judicial independence at the federal level provides a guarantee that judges are free to rule in an honest and nonpartisan manner that is in line with the law and evidence, without concern or fear of interference, control, or improper influence from anyone. This guarantee is provided because judges at the federal level are appointed for life, and need not to worry about partisanship. Contrary to the legislature, the government does not pose a consequential threat to the power of judicial independence because it is at war with itself. However, it is commonly seen that judges at the federal level rely too heavily on

The American public often thinks of law making as the job of congress or the president, and often overlooks the importance of the judicial branch (you said citation needed? But I’m not citing anything these are my own words) . However, The Supreme Court is a national policy maker and directly affects the nation’s laws as well as how the constitution is interpreted; therefore, the decisions that the Supreme Court establishes directly affect thousands of Americans’ lives. It is with this fact in mind that I hope to examine and illustrate the importance of public opinion on the highest Court. If most of America supports an idea, does the Court reflect this majority? Should the court have to reflect the nation’s majority? This thesis examines

Did you know that the Jury system was first introduced in England? The jury system was first introduced in England in the 1400s, but was later brought on to the U.S. When the king tried to take away the jury system because it gave ordinary citizens the power to go against what the king wanted in court, we later wrote in Article III, section 2 of the U.S Constitution to the right to jury trials. The American jury system is well respected by the people, but are they still beneficial? The American jury system is a poor idea because with the jury system many cases are convicted and the juries don’t pay attention to evidence.

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.

The final election is quickly approaching and it is either going to be Donald Trump or you, but this election I would not vote for you if I had the chance because I disagree on majority of your views. Firstly, immigration is a large issue in this country just with jobs alone and you want to follow the same direction as President Obama. I am not saying that immigration is a bad thing, but that some parts of it have gotten out of control such as having millions returning to work, but they have low paying jobs or only work-part time. Next, as I have understood that you believe in “Pro-Choice”, myself being “Pro-Life” makes me on the complete other side of you and I don’t believe that it is right to murder the unborn. In 2012, a total of 699,202

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

The judiciary serves as a check on the legislative and executive branches in the U.S system of limited government by dictating when the other two branches exceed their powers delegated by the constitution. To maintain this role, judicial independence is necessary. The only way to assure independence is to separate judges from legislative, executive and popular opinion. Federal judges are provided lifetime

Since 95 percent of the legal disputes in the United States are settled in State Courts2, it is important to learn if judicial elections are impeding the impartiality of the judiciary. The state of Alabama has partisan judicial election i.e. the judicial candidates declare their political affiliations before election and even after winning for a position they have to maintain public support to retain their seats. Because of this, as mentioned by Bryan Stevenson in his book ‘Just Mercy’, judges in Alabama frequently override jury recommendations into more severe punishment so as to appear ‘hard on crime’ and gather public support for their next election. These severe implications of judicial elections render this issue an unparalleled significance because of which I have chosen to work on

related to the very nature of their job. We will be exploring the problems that could occur when citizens elect judges in partisan elections. Some of the concerns may include campaign contributions, lack of minority representation on the bench, perceptions of fairness, and lack of knowledge on the part of the voters. The issue surfaces almost every election session but quickly fades most likely because the two parties like the present system.

Massey. The participants of this survey were asked to evaluate one of twenty-four versions of the authors vignette, for example some participants are told that the judge recused himself, while other participants were told that he did not. The authors analyzed how respondents perceptions of the impartiality of the court’s ruling were affected by each of these twenty-four versions. From this analysis the authors were able to make the following conclusions. First, they found that the perceived impartiality and legitimacy of the court by citizens are shaped by contextual factors. The assessments of fair and impartial judicial decision making by the respondents were fairly sensitive to the contextual factors stated above. Additionally, they found that contributions to judicial campaigns did, in fact, degrade citizens perceptions of judicial impartiality. The aspect of a judicial controversy that had the strongest influence over perceived institutional legitimacy was whether the judge had accepted campaign contributions from the litigants in the case. Next, the authors found that the recusal of a judge perceived to have a conflict of interest can restore the

Being able to elect judges to the bench provides judges to be more accessible to its citizens. This also allows for citizens to vote for a judge who share their own political and philosophical views (Souders, 2006), which can be beneficial to them. Partisan and non-partisan elections highly favour judicial accountability. Judicial accountability is where judges are held accountable for their decisions and actions, while also being accountable to its citizens both on and off the bench. According to Souders, “making judges directly accountable to the people allows the electorate to define the limits of acceptable judicial conduct, and promotes discussion about evolving standards of judicial conduct” (Souders, 2006). Accountability then creates a more democratic judicial system. This democratic judicial system allows for citizens to directly vote for the removal of a judge, and for a judge to be voted onto the bench based on a majoritarian vote (Souders, 2006). Both partisan and non-partisan judicial elections are beneficial to democracy, by promoting a more participatory democracy, meaning citizens participate in political decisions and policies directly. Unfortunately, a more participatory democracy impacts judicial voting pattern. Judges at the State Supreme Court level are a complete separate entity from all other levels of government in the United States due to the fact that they are elected into judicial position, but they are not independent from the citizens the court serves (Souders,

One of the benefits of judges being appointed is that they are better able to interpret the law and apply it without concern about the popularity of the decisions (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2017, p. 180). Additionally, the judicial appointments are made by several individuals/groups, such as the president and the justice department (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2017, p. 173). There are checks and balances to ensure that the judges appointed are really eligible for the role. A disadvantage of judge appointments is the lack of check after the initial appointment, leading to less accountability in comparison to election of judges (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2017, p. 181). Another disadvantage is that if a