ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of The Judicial Branch

813 Words4 Pages

According to a poll conducted by Gallup, in just the past two decades, the percentage of people who approve of the way the Supreme Court conducts its job has declined from 62% to 40% (Supreme Court). The percentage of people who disapprove has increased from 29% to 58%. It is clear that many Americans today do not approve of the Supreme Court and its Justices. The changes in these percentages can be attributed to the widespread concern that Justices are not impartial. However, it is a fact that bias is within all of us, and we can not only blame the Justices. In fact, this highlights that the Judicial Branch is flawed, outdated, and needs reforms to reflect current times. Recent events and studies have shown that the Judicial Branch is not …show more content…

Currently, California uses term limits for assigning state judges. Judges can be removed by a Committee on Judicial Performance and must run for election every 6 years. The recent scandal of Justice Clarence Thomas being “treated to luxury vacations by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow” for over 20 years highlights the need for reform to the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor). This event has further damaged the public’s perception of the Supreme Court and damages the overall integrity of the Judicial Branch. As a result, the proposal of 18-year term limits for Justices have quickly gained popularity. Each president would be able to appoint two Justices during their four-year term, ensuring that each president has a chance to hopefully make the Court reflect society’s current sentiments. Former Justice Breyer has stated that “an 18-year term period would give justices enough time to fully learn the job and develop jurisprudence”, showing how a term limit would not interfere with a Justice’s line of work. However, some people argue that term limits would cause upheaval. This is simply not true. Although an 18-year term period will bring changes, decision-making will still be based on precedent and the striking down of the anti-choice law in June Medical v. Russo displays that precedent will continue to play an important role in the Justices’ rulings (The Need for Supreme Court Term Limits). Ultimately, adding term limits to the Judicial Branch will be beneficial as it restores public

Show More
Related
756 Words | 4 Pages

The Senate failed to muster enough votes to convict and remove Chase. The precedent thus established was fortunate. From that day to this, no really serious attempt has been made to reshape the Supreme Court by the impeachment weapon. Jefferson’s ill advised attempt at “judge breaking’’ was a reassuring victory for the independence of the judiciary and for the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government.”

Read More
710 Words | 3 Pages

Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

Read More
174 Words | 1 Pages

Peter Irons’ Brennan vs. Rehnquist discusses the philosophical differences between Supreme Court Justices William Brennan and William Rehnquist, but on a deeper level, the importance of having a balance of ideas within the Judiciary Branch. Brennan’s ideology, as a lawyer and judge, tended to be more progressive by focusing on the dignity of all people. However, Rehnquist had conservative proclivity and believed that whoever held the majority should subject their own morals upon those in the minority, which is directly at odds with the beliefs of his more liberal counterpart. The author also states that the members of the Supreme Court are selected by publicly elected officials, meaning that the general population of voters hold an important

Read More
169 Words | 1 Pages

President Clinton is about to select his first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the next few months, Governor Schaefer will get an opportunity to fill key vacancies in Maryland 's two highest courts. It 's a good time to rethink the criteria for selecting judges. The traditional vision of the ideal judge, long embraced by both the legal establishment and the public, is one who is ' 'detached ' ' and ' 'impartial. ' '

Read More
564 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
562 Words | 3 Pages

Only then will the judges be able to protect the constitution and the rights and privileges of the citizens, along with changing the minds of the framers who thought the judicial branch was weak. Hamilton emphasized that it was necessary for the judicial branch to take advantage of its power of checks and balances and make itself independent, however, still continue to work hand in hand with the

Read More
1090 Words | 5 Pages

In America, judges have become too politicised . The government in power for example could be republican. They might appoint a judge who aligns with their political view and policy, causing that judge to interpret the constitution in such a way that allows the government to get away with something or may change rulings on a right. An example of this polarisation is the famous Bush v Gore case in 2000. In this case, a recount of votes in counties in Florida had not been undertaken, as was required due to the low majority.

Read More
828 Words | 4 Pages

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,

Read More
329 Words | 2 Pages

Folks – we need to be sturdy enough to call for referendum to amendment that thoughtless law enshrined in the constitution giving the Supreme Court the ardent dead-on without any form of limitation to summons, prosecute, and indict the citizenry for exercising their first amendment right. What the Supreme Court is doing is scapegoating citizenry who spontaneously express their view of the Supreme Court rulings they felt is antithetical to their fundamental right. Colleague this is not democracy is rather a tyranny at best. The point worth making exceedingly flawless that Supreme Court is not an infallible or foolproof institution.

Read More
1450 Words | 6 Pages

Rather, the United States’ judicial system should remain impartial and consistent while interpreting the laws as they are written. Also, the Constitution is not an optional document to reference, rather, it is our nation’s original rule book by which the judicial system should base its decisions and interpretations on. As one of the most influential and transformative justices of his time, Justice Scalia’s vision for the Constitution included that of which it is to nail things down so they would last. Although our nation is constantly changing, the Constitution must remain the foundation of our existence as a sovereign nation, and the document itself must not be loosely interpreted and disregarded by flawed and power-hungry justices. To maintain the integrity of our judicial system and maintain a prosperous future for America, it is important we follow Justice Scalia’s vision and leave the Constitution as it was when it was first adopted, while also not repeatedly ignoring and broadly misinterpreting

Read More
339 Words | 2 Pages

This shows that term limits in the Supreme Court became more important. For example, if they have more mature members, they would understand the law, and would understand the politics and their decisions on the society. Mr. Ingraham stated

Read More
1226 Words | 5 Pages

This is a prime example of how justices aren’t granted power unless seen fit. Justices go through a lengthy process to get to the office. This process helps protect the independence of the judiciary from the other branches. The president along with the executive branch and the senate, not only hires the justices but also keeps them in check throughout their terms. The president’s main way of keeping the court within the limit is through filing court vacancies.

Read More
1957 Words | 8 Pages

harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/reform-congress-not-the-court/. “Reform the Supreme Court - Is Leading the Fight.” n.d. Demand Justice. Accessed April 16, 2024. demandjustice.org/priorities/supreme-court-reform/. “Rep. Johnson Re-Introduces Supreme Court Justice Term Limit Measure to Restore Balance, Legitimacy for SCOTUS.”

Read More
478 Words | 2 Pages

Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.

Read More
801 Words | 4 Pages

This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms. In considering the equity of the pros and cons it is my opinion that the existing system in place works best. Every system is flawed.

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of The Judicial Branch

Open Document