In advising the Chief Justice, it is obvious that the voting districts should be redrawn for a multitude of reasons. As the system of drawing districts stands, it is highly vulnerable to corruption for the party in power, as they are the ones deciding the districts. Concurrently, those in power are incentivized to maintain their power through any means necessary; which, in a democracy, is obtaining the most votes. Because it is extremely difficult determining whether or not the drawing of a district is preferential to one party over another is, the risk to those in power is minimal while the potential payout is high. Thus, short of any moral reasoning to stop them, the likelihood of someone gaming the design of voting districts is high.
The concerns that Senators have about federal appeals court nominees is unjust and unneeded. The only people in the court system who have the ability to overturn laws of legislation and policy are Supreme Court Judges, so it is wrong to subject appeals court nominees to strict ideological tests that the Justices are given. The Justices are the only people who can overturn or rule things unconstitutional, whether it is from cases, executive orders, or when the bureaucracy overstep its’ bounds. It does not matter what an appeals court nominees personal opinion is on a case, because he or she will be following the precedent already set up by the Supreme Court. It does not matter what the nominees opinion is on Roe v. Wade, because as an appellate
Federalists believed the Constitution provided just the right mix of power and limitations. The federalists wanted to make sure the central government either had more or less power. The first government of the US was a one-house legislature with no executive. It couldn't raise money, it relied on the states for military power, and was generally seen as ineffective and weak. The US Constitution was written to remedy those weaknesses and provide the US with a better, more representative form of government.
and i totally agree with that. In the end partisan and racial gerrymandering is equally as bad and is very unfair toward any group.
Is Gerrymandering a Controversial Topic? Gerrymandering is a process where the ruling political party uses the map of their state to draw lines that create voting districts in favor of their party. The result of this is that it doesn’t reflect the voters political views. For about 200 years the government has used gerrymandering during political elections and it continues to be used today (King, Elizabeth) .
Mystie Robinson American Government Term Limits of Congress The United States Congress is a bicameral legislature of the United States of America’s federal government. Congress has two parts: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Members of Congress can spend many years in office. They don’t have term limits.
Upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal justice, McConnell saw an opportunity to put in another conservative justice, even though it was closer to the election. This hypocrisy from the Republican party is a political move for them to gain more power across the government. The Constitution does not state the number of SCOTUS justices there can be. If the President wanted, he could nominate dozens of liberal justices and have most of the Senate confirm them so that their political party could be benefited. SCOTUS was never meant to be politicized, and if it continues to be, this will create massive swings on what the law is for our country.
What is actually happening is allowing Supreme Court justices to serve for life. An article stated that “by making new appointments less frequent, longer tenure has diminished the abilities of presidents and senators to provide the only form of democratic accountability that is consistent with judicial independence,” (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). William Douglas, who has set record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years) who has cast the deciding vote, along with Hugo Black who retired at the age of 85 and Thurgood Marshall who retired at the age of 83. “ I’m getting old and falling apart,” Marshall said on his last day (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). That’s why it is better to bring fresh perspectives, and especially those people who understand the
One of Reagan’s most far-reaching victories occurred through judicial appointments. Reagan named 368 district and federal appeals court judges during his two terms. Some noted that almost all of the appointees were white
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
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.”
The main advantage is that it removes the concentration of power from one individual. This ensures that abuse of power is limited. Giving different individuals from varying parties will also result in the creation of checks and balances in the executive. A lieutenant governor from the Democratic Party will be able to check the activities and the undertakings of a Republican governor thus ensuring that they operate within the confines of the law and the powers of their office. Also, the system allows for the introduction or the enforcement of the manifestos held by both parties, thereby resulting in greater benefits to the population.
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.
Specialized Courts Specialized courts are commonly known as the problem-solving courts that promote positive reinforcement, support behavior modification, decrease victimization, and reduce recidivism. Examples of specialized courts include drug court and mental health courts. A community might benefit from establishing a specialized court such as a drug court because it follows a comprehensive model that concentrates on reducing criminal actions through treatment and rehabilitation services with the focus being on substance abuse addiction and identifying the cause without jeopardizing public safety and due process (Specialized Courts, 2013).
