In Arizona, relocation of a minor child when there is a written agreement or court order between two parents (both residing in the state of Arizona), is regulated by Arizona Revised Statute 25-408. In most cases, application of this statute’s regulations becomes necessary when one parent wishes to relocate with the minor child out of state. In some cases, such as Thompson v. Thompson, the statute can be cited in relation to relocation within the state of Arizona. A Brief History of the Case: Thompson v. Thompson:
Valerie Jimenez Professor Gilligan Government – 2306 25 September 2017 Texas and U.S Constitution There is no doubt that the Texas and United States Constitutions are important to keep democracy. Both constitutions contain similarities as well as some major differences. The first similarity would be the process of separation of powers. Separation of Powers was created by the “framers of the Constitution [who] feared too much centralized power” (PBS) and who knew that “the accumulation of all powers… in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (PBS).
1. Briefly discuss the four general methods of selecting state judges (appointment, partisan election, nonpartisan elections, and merit selection) and choose one in which you feel will result in the best judicial candidate, and why. When selecting a state judge the methods used are diverse compared to selecting a federal court judge since there are four general methods used, this
Dissenting opinion for Johnson Is there any sort of consequences to someone if they burn the American Flag? In the U.S Supreme Court case “Texas v. Johnson”, Johnson was jailed by the start of Texas due to the desecration of the American Flag. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted his case, and the majority opinion of the case decided it was not a criminal offence to burn a flag because of the First Amendment. We the dissenting opinion believe that the burning of the American Flag should be a criminal offence.
This essay, will go over the selection process of both the Florida and New York judicial selection process, it will also compare and contrast their selection procedures will be scrutinized plus and include personal views on the best selection procedure between the two. The law consists of the trial court and appellate court which are the two main functional categories; the
The Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 in the case of Hernandez v. Texas was the start of a breakthrough for Mexican Americans in the United States. The case was brought to existence after Pete Hernandez was accused of murder in Jackson County, a small town called Edna, Texas. The special thing about this case that makes it significant was the jury that were including in this trial. It was said that a Mexican American hadn’t served on a jury in the county of Jackson in 25 years. With the help of a Mexican American lawyer, Gustavo Garcia, the case was brought to the highest court level and was beheld as a Violation of the constitution.
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
In Texas, there are two separate high courts: The Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Having two separate high courts in Texas is good because make this system more professional. However, these two high court heard different cases. The Supreme Court of Texas is the highest civil and juvenile cases, and it is the final appellate jurisdiction in Texas. In contrast, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest and the final criminal court in Texas, and the jurisdiction of death penalty cases.
In Texas, the selection of judges and the types of judicial selection processes used in the United States are crucial aspects of the legal system that impact the judiciary’s independence and accountability. Understanding the laws of the selection of judges in Texas and the various methods used across the U.S. provides knowledge about how judges are appointed or elected. This paper will include Texas law regarding the selection of most judges in Texas, the types of judicial selection processes used in the U.S., which selection is the best, and what I would do to engage the political process in Texas to pursue my position. The current Texas laws regarding the selection of judges are partisan elections and merit-based selection. Partisan elections involve judicial candidates running for office with a party label, for example,
Bonneau found that state supreme court campaign spending was driven by the characteristics of race, institutional arrangements, and the electoral and state supreme court context. There were moments when he defended his position well, but then moments when he did not. A few of his hypotheses were disproved, either as having intervening factors or spurious. The main strength in Bonneau’s argument was that he gave many comparisons and contrasts of the state judicial systems.
The main draw to merit selection is the commissions, which “minimize political influence by eliminating the need for candidates to raise funds, advertise, and make campaign promises, all of which can compromise judicial independence” (AJS, 2010, p. 1). Unfortunately, the commissions are the main drawback as well because many people think it is easily politically influenced. New York is a good example to analyze which one of these ideals is true since it changed from partisan election to merit selection in its highest courts, the court of appeals (Becker and Reddick, 2003, p. 25). Remember, merit selection most commonly uses retention elections to retain judges in office, but something unique about New York’s system is they do not use retention elections, which have been shown to be politically influenced like partisan elections (Reid, 1999, p. 68 and 69), subject to change with public opinion (Canes-Wrone, Clark, and Park, 2010, p. 229) , and have a low turnover rate (Carbon and Berkson, 1980, Abstract), like most states with merit selection of some kind. Retention elections have the main purpose of trying
In Texas, we hold factional races to pick our judges. These are general races where applicants selected host their individual gathering marks show up on the poll. Periodically judges are chosen off just gathering association and not entirely in the event that they are great, reasonable judges. For instance, The San-Antonio Express News composes, "...good judges from the two gatherings are cleared out of office
Federal and State Judges hear a variety of cases and have multiple levels of courts in which is ends at a high court for overall decisions. Each state in the U.S. creates their own judicial system. They determine how judges will selected and qualifications they feel is necessary to be a judge in that state. I am from Texas and our philosophy is no different. There are many differences between Texas and federal judges
Are partisan elections destroying America? This is one topic of debate that consistently comes up today as to whether judges should be chosen by partisan election. Let’s discuss some disadvantages of this. Judges are trained professional who are supposed to be unbiased law maker in the pursuit of justice. They should be not influence by the public.
Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
