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
In Nevada, in contrast, the State Supreme Court uses a “staggered” system in order to appoint their judges. The judges are selected not by presidential appointment but by “qualified electors of the State at the general election,” and are only allowed to hold their office for a limited period of years. Furthermore, the Chief Justice is only allowed to maintain their post for six years, thus reducing the opportunity to shape the direction of the state’s laws throughout the remainder of their lives.
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 framers gave life tenure to federal judges to ensure an independent judiciary, a judiciary that would not bow to the political pressure of the day.” What the framers failed to recognize is that justices would be reluctant to leave their position for persona or political reasons or before mental decline. My 28th amendment will help to solve these problems.
While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.
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.
Since the founding of the American Democracy, partisanship has always been a major problem when it comes to political aspects of the law. The Constitution was designed to implement laws into our country that would make our governing body run smoother with fewer conflicts. However, when dealing with Democracy based on the “people’s word” it is hard to avoid such conflicts. Since each citizen in our country has the right to freedom of speech and thought, the interpretation of various parts of the Constitution have become heavily analyzed when dealing with cases of various crimes that happen in the United States. Each judge on the Supreme Court is entitled to his or her own political ideology so it is a constant debate as to whether a judge has biases on a particular issue based on political views. These biases weave through our justice system creating a disarray of views and arguments that always reflect back on the judges and their presentation, or lack their of, of American ways.
Over the years the cost of running for judicial office has become more and more costly due to the amount of money it takes to purchase commercial ads and politicking. This has made it necessary to take donations in order to have a substantial campaign here inlays the dilemma; most Texans are indifferent to judicial campaigns leaving the donating to interest groups, lawyers, and possible litigants. Making the possibility for leniency and partiality in future cases where the donators could expect a more favorable outcome in their cases in the judges court. Our book states that 86 percent of judges believed that campaign support had some influences over judicial decisions. This would mean that guilt and innocence could be bought with campaign money endangering our very way of impartial decisions.
78 examining issues surrounding the judiciary department of the new government being proposed. In his paper, Hamilton justifies the method of appointing the judges, the tenure by which they are to hold their places, and the partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other. The method of appointing judges was fully discussed in earlier papers, and Hamilton saw no need in reiterating what was already said. Hamilton states that judges appointed are to hold their offices “during good behavior” (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p. A18). Hamilton’s belief that the standard of good behavior for the duration in office was one of the most valued advances in government. Basing a judge’s tenure on good behavior “secures a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p.
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
This retention election process is beneficial because it allows citizens to retain judges who are doing significantly. It also allows us as citizens to vote off Judges who we think are doing poorly or do not represent us as a whole. Justice Penny White
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
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.
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