Essay On Judicial Selection

You do not want Xlandia to be run on biases. If the people do select who are their judges, then they may be picking who will be kind to them, instead of being fair. You do not want a biased vote when it comes to the Constitution’s laws.

When I think of the judicial system, I think of power and final decision making. In a sense, that concept can be scary. However, the judicial system by no means has as much power as one might think, and we can thank the Bill of Rights for that. Specifically, the 6th amendment is what protects us in a court of law. The 6th amendment sets boundaries and rules for trying and convicting a citizen of the United States, and that is why it is so beneficial to us. It has saved innocent people from corrupt accusations, it has convicted guilty people whom deny their crimes, it has helped America’s judicial system immensely, but it is not bullet proof or set in stone. There are loopholes, exceptions, and even exemptions. I hope that by the end of this

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.

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

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.

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. Appointing the judges on the other hand would only benefit that particular party affiliation. The outcome of judges being appointed would ultimately bring more harm than good. The plus for appointments would

Florida courts are plagued with too many people appointed or elected who are entrusted with the sole responsibilities of doing out justice in their public official capacity, who often times suffer from the common syndrome of lacking the ability to separate the administration of justice from the imbuing of their very own interest and passion.

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

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 traditional vision of the ideal judge, long embraced by both the legal establishment and the public, is one who is ' 'detached ' ' and ' 'impartial. ' ' The model jurist renders decisions without regard to personal values, beliefs or experiences. For many, the most important test of judicial nominees from Robert Bork to John Arnick is whether, given prior statements and acts, the nominee can be ' 'impartial. ' ' The assumption is that only impartial judges can be fair.

Our establishing fathers added to the technique, the detachment of forces, to forestall misuse of power among the three branches and to ensure the opportunity of all. Every branch has its particular force- executive power belongs to the president, authoritative force exists within Congress, and the legal authority rests with the Supreme Court. The significance of the partition of powers was to make an administration that would not become domineering. Rather, it was deliberately intended to advance freedom and equitably speak to the will of the individuals. Another significant highlight of the division of forces is the guideline of giving each of the branches an extraordinarily diverse voting public. Today in the United States, many people ask

When the delegates of the 1875-1876 Texas Constitutional Convention came together, their main priority in drawing up a new constitution was to restrict the amount of power the state government had over Texans. After Texas suffered thought the corruption that occurred under the previous governor, Edmund J. Davis, the delegates wanted to ensure that a similar situation would never happen again. The first step they took towards that goal was writing a bill of rights, which would be the first article of the constitution. This article ensured that the people’s rights would be protected from the government such as “guaranteed liberty of speech and press, the right of the accused to obtain bail and to be tried by a jury, and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.”

The executive branch includes and is led by the President of the United States of America. Furthermore, this branch also includes the cabinet, executive, and independent agency departments. The President is able to veto the proposition of a new law and designate federal judges and federal posts. The President is also given the power to grant forgiveness to a crime that has been committed. As well as negotiate with foreign countries and treaties about situations and certain topics. According to the article “Judicial Appointments: Checks and Balances in Practice”, written by Rachel Brand, she states that:

On March 3, Adams, in an attempt to prevent the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. There

It is independent of the legislative and executive branches. Judges are public officers appointed to preside in a court of justice, to interpret and apply the laws of Canada (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.). Talking about the qualities required by a judge, they are required to have the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives. They should be highly knowledgeable about the law, willing to undertake in-depth legal research, and able to write decisions that are fair and convincing. Their judgment should be clear, and they should be able to make informed decisions that will stand up to close scrutiny and issues arising from the disputes. Judges should be open-minded and fair, and should appear and represent themselves to be fair and open-minded. They should be good listeners but should be able, when required, to ask questions that get to the heart of the issue before the court. They should be respectful in the courtroom but strong whenever it is necessary to overpower a rambling lawyer, a disrespectful litigant or an ill-mannered