The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
Ideally, being able to elect judges seems like a fair concept. Both parties present a field candidate and the voters decide which to choose; however, this system is flawed. Not only is it difficult for the people to obtain any real information about their candidates, there is also the issue of “…Texas justice being sold to the highest bidder.” As a result, many cases have been influenced because of these generous contributions to the candidates. Rather than electing judicial officials, Texas should adopt a system of having a governor, or the Senate, appoint its judges, then every few years, voters sustain the right to retain those judges if they so desire.
Taking a significant step away from the Framers’ vision of the judiciary and stepping closer toward a politicized Supreme Court that acts as a super-legislature and super-regulator; Massachusetts v EPA, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court stepping closer toward a politicized Supreme Court that acts as a super-legislature and super-regulator (p. 176, Rosenbloom, 2015, Vicara, 2017). In this decision, the Court substituted its judgment for that of the politically accountable branches of the federal government. In doing so, the Court undermined the legal rules of standing. The majority also supported its decision with a one-sided and unsophisticated account of the scientific evidence for the petitioners’ claims concerning climate change, needlessly
In addition to judicial selection methods, at the federal level, the president and senate get to appoint seats to judges, in which they will have for life. In my opinion, I think this selection method is good to some extent because I trust that the president and senate have good judgment when it comes to picking judges that will be independent, fair, and accountable. At the state level, electing judges varies from state to state. In
Out of the two selection methods, partisan elections are more voter-oriented than merit-based selections. While Texas has its process for selecting judges in Texas, the United States has its own methods for judge selection. For example, one selection is also through appointments. When a judge is selected by appointment, the governor appoints district and appellate judges to the bench to fill vacancies before an election or to fill judgeships on new courts (Champagne, Harpham, Casellas 2021, 308). Similar to merit-based elections, but in this case voters don’t get to vote whether to elect or evict.
Charles Richard Drew was born on June 3, 1904, in Washington, D.C (Charles Drew). He was an African-American doctor who created approaches to process and store blood plasma in "blood donation centers." He coordinated the blood plasma projects of the United States and Great Britain in World War II, however surrendered after a decision that the blood of African-Americans would be isolated. He passed on April 1, 1950. A spearheading African-American restorative specialist, Dr. Charles R. Drew made some notable disclosures in the capacity and handling of blood for transfusions.
The Supreme Court is an extremely important part of government. As such, we need healthy judges that are on top of their mental game. Therefore, term limits are necessary because newer judges can have a different point of view, mental health will be reduced, and the majority of Americans support term limits. If we have newer judges they will have a different point of view. In the article, Christopher stated that “It would mean a court that more accurately refers the changes and judgements of the society.”
I believe that a person can predict a decision that the Supreme Court Justices make because of their views are liberal or conservative. Because of their views on either side, they deal with cases by finding loopholes to interpret the laws to make it suitable for the case that works on their side (Pollack, 2017). The final legislation and authority in this country are The United States Supreme Court, despite the objective decision making they decide constitutional cases which are sometimes far from a neutral outcome. The federal judges and the Supreme Court Justices and appointed by the president because it is a political contest between the liberals and the conservatives so that when there is a substantial issue like abortion, there is only
The concepts of the civil jury system date back to the Middle Ages “when twelve ‘compurgators,’ essentially witnesses, were gathered together to take an oath that [a] party was honest, or to attest that they had witnessed a relevant transaction. The assumption was that God would intervene on the side of the innocent person” (Doroshow 3). These essential prejudices boil down to the belief that each individual possesses an inalienable right to defend his/her self. The Founding Fathers of the United States supported this belief.
Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices The process for electing a federal judge is both a simple, yet complicated one. A number of things take place between the need for a nominee and the appointment to a position. The basis for the nomination and appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices is the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution: “The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....” First a vacancy must be present at which time the President can make a nomination.
To win any kind of election/re-election candidates must work to please voters. Here in Texas where a majority of people have a strong pro-death penalty stance, judges must also have a strong stance regarding the death penalty if they would like to remain in office. This is concerning because judges will be more likely to seek he death penalty for the convicted so they can create a record of toughness to win over voters. Some elected judges are sometimes of lesser quality than appointed judges in other states, but since they have a record of toughness everything else is thrown out the window. District attorneys also try to maintain a tough reputation as well.
Our legal system allows judges to make important decisions on their own, which is a huge responsibility, and if it falls into the wrong hands, there could be severe
Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.
We enjoy our ability to exercise our rights in the voting booth. With that in mind, electing judges serves the will of the people and makes us feel as though we have a measured amount of control over the judicial system. This requires judicial candidates to expose their lives to public scrutiny and represent their voting pool. Conversely, appointed judges would have an easier time concealing truths about themselves that they would prefer the public not see. Favors among close circles of officials are likely easier to be traded in secret.
The Introduction The precedent is a decided legal case, which is used as a basis for deciding later similar cases. The English Law system is a legal system where the precedent has a great weight. This law system can be subdivided into two main interrelated branches: statute (or statutory) law and common law. Statute is an Act of Parliament, which starts its life as a bill, goes through the parliament, receives royal assent and becomes law.
