The United States Judicial System

Article 3, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” meaning that as long as Supreme Court judges don’t commit crimes, they can hold their position

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.

Judicial power is given to the Supreme Court. All nine federal judges are appointed by the President and serve "during good behavior," usually meaning for life. The judges cannot be removed from office except for criminal behavior or malfeasance. This makes them less vulnerable to political pressure and outside influence. The main feature of the independent role for the courts lies in their power to interpret the Constitution. They review the "constitutionality" of laws and executive orders. There are

The Constitution states that federal judges are to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They hold office during good behavior, typically, for life. Through Congressional impeachment proceedings, federal judges may be removed from office for misbehavior.

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

Primarily, judicial review consists of four main components.5 The first dynamic of judicial review is that the Supreme Court can reject any federal, presidential or congressional, act or law which is deemed to be unconstitutional centred upon the judiciary’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.6 For instance, the Supreme Court can void a presidential-line item veto, i.e. the President’s ability to erase part of a bill passed by the legislature involving taxation or spending.7 In addition, the second factor of judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down any state act (gubernatorial) or law (state legislature), which is judged as unconstitutional based, again, upon the Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.8 One such example of this power being exercised is when the Supreme Court annulled California’s attempt to enforce congressional term limits.9

The power that the legislative branch holds over the judicial branch is that even though the president gets to pick the judge, the legislative branch gets to approve the judge. And like with the president the legislative branch/ congress also has the power to impeach the 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.

The California judicial system and the United States federal system are different but comparable. Consequently, both the California and the United States federal judicial system handle different types of cases. Essentially, California handles cases that deal with 1) state courts 2) civil cases and 3) criminal cases. On the other hand, the United States federal system handle cases that deal with 1) the Constitution, 2) laws that are passed through congress and 3) cases in which the United States is a party. In spite of the fact that the California system and the United States federal system are different yet comparable, this paper will address both court systems concluding with the United States federal system being superior to the California system.

Proponents of Judicial Elections argue that electing judges at a state level allows the judges to reconnect with the people in a closer way and to be more sensitive towards public opinion. However, the Judiciary system, unlike its other two counterparts, was not created to be a democratic institution. Instead, it was built to examine whether the government or the people are acting in accordance to law. Therefore, I oppose Judicial Elections for several reasons. One, it introduces partisanship to a supposedly impartial system and two, it risks disrupting the initial purpose of the Judiciary System which is to counterbalance the steps taken by the Congress and the Executive branch with the law.

Texas is one of seven states that elect judges in partisan elections. Judicial selection begins with partisan elections and notable amounts of money for campaigning in order to win the election or reelection. Partisan elections influence the electorate in a consistent party label voting procedure. With the present day option of split-ticket voting, the electorate can simply vote for their party. Judges are removed only by failure to be reelected by the Supreme Court due to incompetence, official misconduct, negligence, or by impeachment from the House or trial in the Senate with a two-thirds vote.

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.

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

When a judge is selected through executive appointment, the governor or legislature from the state they are in will choose them from a large selection of possible candidate. Traditionally, this process gives all of the power to appoint a judge solely to the governor. This process is the least effective of all three. There are zero states who still solely practice this method traditionally and there is a good reason for that. Essentially, the governor of a state can purely pick any eligible candidate. A governor could appoint someone that would help them further their political agenda. This is not a reasonable way to select a good candidate. There has to be regulations and systems in place that choose the most qualified candidate. Many states utilize executive appointment but have added methods to keep the governor in check. For example, in New Jersey a governor can

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.