ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Litmus Tests For Potential Appellate Judges

787 Words4 Pages

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 …show more content…

As stated before, appellate judges should be bipartisan and they should not be bringing their own personal opinions up to determine a case. Questioning nominees about their personal views about a case that already has a precedent gives them the idea that the appellate courts are much more polarizing than they actually are. Not only that, but if appellate nominees are subject to a “litmus test” there is a chance that the nominee would feel obligated to be partisan. Like Clarence Thomas, the nominee may become bitter and have their own partisan agenda after going through the unneeded and invasive questioning during their confirmation. This will deter nominees from searching for the right and lawful answers, and instead it will push them towards their own political agenda. The consequence of forcing nominees to do this test is going to force them to become radical in their views. The only court that is and should be truly political is the Supreme …show more content…

When the nominees are finally given the opportunity to be a judge, they are under the impression that they have to be partisan. The Senate will continue to not grant hearings for nominees, and the nominees will be continued to be questioned about cases already settled in the Supreme Court. Nominees will continued to be called out on their opinions, even though they have very little to do with their jobs. This may happen, but Rosen found that at that time this was written the D.C. Circuit courts had been becoming more bipartisan and cohesive in the past decade or so. Though, this is the already elected judges and not the nominees. With an influx of new judges who have been subjected to the questioning, there is a chance that this bipartisanship could

Show More
Related
1482 Words | 6 Pages

Garnett, each justice was well rehearsed in politics and an ability to interpret the Constitution in various situations. The Chief Justice, appointed in 1921, post-presidency, by the Republican political party, was William H. Taft. The appointed justices during this case include: Joseph R. McKenna (appointed in 1898 by the Democratic party), Oliver Wendell Holmes (appointed in 1903 by the Republican party), William R. Day (appointed in 1903 by the Republican party), Willis Van Devanter (appointed in 1910 by the Republican party), Mahlon Pitney (appointed in 1912 by the Republican party), James C. McReynolds (appointed in 1914 by the Democratic party), Louis D. Brandeis (appointed in 1916 by the Democratic party), and George Sutherland (appointed in 1922 by the Republican party). During this case, it was extremely important for the justices to be able to interpret the Constitution, weigh it against State Constitutions, as well as compare contentions to past Supreme Court Cases. To begin looking at Leser v. Garnett, it is important to look at each contention individually, and the arguments against it (as, during each objection, the Supreme Court unanimously against it).

Read More
2936 Words | 12 Pages

Parker was a relatively unknown judge to many outside of his field before the nomination,

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

If states could create their own qualifications for members of Congress, it would conflict with the Framer’s vision of a uniform national legislature. Powell was used as precedent because the Court decided qualifications other than those in the Constitution could not be imposed on members of Congress under Article I, Section 5, the Qualifications Clause. The petitioner, U.S. Term Limits, Inc., argued the Constitution did not prohibit adding qualifications to legislators, and therefore, the power was granted to the states under the Tenth Amendment. The Court disagreed, stating the power to add qualifications was not included in the original powers of the states, so it could not be given to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The Court also argued the Qualifications Clause includes specific qualifications in order to prevent states from adding new qualifications.

Read More
694 Words | 3 Pages

The appointment of judges has become clearly political. It is not uncommon to hear of candidates making statements with regards to contested political issues as well as the use of partisan language. According to (Bannon, 10) “For neutral arbiters, this heightened political temperature risks exacerbating pressures to decide cases based on political loyalty or expediency, rather than on their understanding of the law.” The selection of judges through popular election therefore suffers serious flaws since the electorate tend to base their decisions on charm instead of serious determinants. The results can be that the person elected as a judge turns out to be one who falls short of the glory of this office in terms of experience, legal training and education.

Read More
782 Words | 4 Pages

Marbury v. Madison In the final days of his presidency, John Adams approved a law for 16 new federal judges, called the Judiciary Act of 1801. Thomas Jefferson did not agree with these last minute appointments. Secretary of State James Madison did not deliver the appointment notices to the judges. William Marbury, one of the new judges, fought back against losing his new job.

Read More
702 Words | 3 Pages

The Supreme Court has looked over many cases, all making drastic life changes and some making no difference in the world. The case Texas vs. Johnson uproared so many political arguments, amendment arguments, and even country disputes. This case was and is still important because it brought up the basis of the government's beliefs against an individual beliefs. The Supreme Court did rule in favor of Johnson, but it disgusted them, and they did not believe it was okay. The main reason why the government and many military personales found it offensive ws because it found a different way to speech out against the nation.

Read More
167 Words | 1 Pages

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.

Read More
508 Words | 3 Pages

I do think that Neil Gorsuch is qualified to take the position as the new supreme court justice. He is known to have an outstanding resume; He graduated from Harvard Law School and he studied under a lawyer named John Finnis. Neil knows what it is like to be a conservative on a liberal college campus. Gorsuch co-founded The MorningSide Review and The Federalist while he was in Columbia University in New York. Gorsuch and his two other co-founders believed that the campus had primarily liberal political views.

Read More
800 Words | 4 Pages

To begin with, the problem with having the people elect their judges is that the citizens know next to nothing about who they are voting for. Of course, it is important the people have a say in the decision-making, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone is an expert in government. Candidates have no problem in persuading the people that the other candidate is evil and corrupted and not suitable to serve. Furthermore, it is difficult to learn how well a judge preforms his or her job once they are put into office. Why?

Read More
807 Words | 4 Pages

The Texas Constitution has three branches of government, the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. Every branch is responsible for certain duties that make this state run smoothly. If I could change one thing about each of the three branches, what would it be and why? The legislative branch is the branch that is in charge of making the laws, and it is by law that government define crime, establish the basis of civil suits, determine what will be taxed and who will pay how much in taxes, and set up government programs and the agencies that administer them.

Read More
462 Words | 2 Pages

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

Read More
1112 Words | 5 Pages

I believe this particular decision was one made in haste and based solely on political preference rather than based on having a fair and impartial electoral process that would benefit society rather than the justices. The Supreme Court stepped in and decided the election for the voters, which was an

Read More
339 Words | 2 Pages

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.”

Read More
517 Words | 3 Pages

Most supreme court justices are biased and act from partisan positions. A partisan is a committed member of their political party: They strongly support their parties policies. Although the supreme court justices should have the option to be able to agree with their party, they should not overlook the actual case. Decision on a case should be because of its background, not solely because a person 's party agreed with it. The supreme court should not be permitted to act on partisan positions.

Read More
801 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Litmus Tests For Potential Appellate Judges

Related Topics

Open Document