Law Clerks and the Supreme Court In his book, Storm Center, David O’Brien explains how the role of Supreme Court Law Clerks has evolved dramatically over time. The first clerk was not hired until 1882, meanwhile, it was not a paid position until 1886. In contrast, today law clerks are so essential to the Court’s structure that they are sometimes referred to as “junior justices.” As O’Brien analyzes this transition it can seem as though the modern Justices are just trying to put their work off on other people. However, this just merely scratches the surface of what’s actually going on. The growing importance of law clerks over time not only reflects the growth and expansion of the United States as a whole but also shifts in how our society functions. As a result, the Court has had to take on more responsibility, while also changing the way they approach their jobs. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court has become more institutionalized since its founding, due its growing caseload. At first, the growing caseload was a result of the countries …show more content…
While there is some merit to this argument, it’s actually just a reflection of institutionalization in the Court and also society as a whole. For a wide variety of jobs, the higher up roles rely heavily on secretaries and interns to do the dirty work, for lack of a better term. For example, when you “call your congressman,” you’re not actually talking to your Congressman on the phone. You are talking to an intern who relays your message to the Member of Congress’s staff, who reports the general feelings of the district to the Congressman. It would be impossible for a Member of Congress to answer every single phone call, read every email, and letter and still be able to get anything else done. The fact of the matter is, the role of the law clerk is merely interconnected with how today’s society
David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.
FACTS All states and lawyer depend on state laws, Supreme Court ethics, legal ethics opinions and other stated regulation. Recently, the Supreme Court of Virginia declined the adoption of carefully formulated formal rule governing its paralegals. They were the proposed regulations that provided an imperative compendium of paralegals ‘pros and cons’.
Marbury v. Madison The most important trial in the history of the United States is the case of Marbury v. Madison, in which judge John Marshall that stated the Supreme Court of the United States and the other five judges of this Court decided that they had the power to review laws made by the representatives of the population and of the States in the Congress of the union, and they also had the power to nullify these laws if in his opinion were contrary to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the only court established by the Constitution of the United States; all the others have been created by Congress. Furthermore, The Court possesses the power of judicial review and the power of declare unconstitutional federal or State laws and
John Marshall, the fourth chief of justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, became perhaps the nation’s “most illustrious judicial figure” according to Charles Evans Hughes (Simon, 2012). He was strongly committed to the need to create a strong and effective government. Marshall quickly became a prominent political figure of the Federalist Party in the 1790’s, and in early 1801, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President John Adams. On assuming his duties, Chief Justice John Marshall took immediate action to strengthen the power of the Court (Fox, 2006). He raised the United States Supreme Court from an anomalous position to majesty and power.
Lily Craymer November 8, 2017 Texas Politics County Court Judges vs Supreme Court Judges In Texas, County Court judges and Supreme Court judges both have the title of “judge” in their names, but what does that really mean? If someone introduces themselves with the title of a judge, it doesn’t give any specifics on what their public responsibilities are. Both positions have different levels of power, but are equally important. In order to reform Texas laws, one must know how it functions.
Nils Christie’s view on modern law is that due to specialization, victims have lost the right to participate in their trials. Lawyers are becoming too involved in cases, taking conflicts away from parties and turning them into property. Christie states there there is less attention focused on the effects on the victim and more focus on the criminal’s background. Christie also states that getting a court to function is difficult while there are specialists present. According to Christie, parties become uneasy with handling their own social conflicts where they know there are professionals present who they believe can do a better job.
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.”
Introduction • As Atticus once said, “Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal” (Lee, 274). • Prejudice should not be present in court to ensure everyone is given an equal chance. • However, this failed to occur in the case of Leo Frank. The jury was unable to rise above social prejudice and see the case with an open mind.
Texas has two high-courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, each have 9 justices. Below the two high-courts is the Court of Appeals with 14 courts, 80 justices, followed by district Courts, which have 456 courts with 456 judges, and the County-Level Courts having 505 Courts and 505 judges. Below these are the municipal courts in 920 cities, 6 towns with 1559 judges and justice of the peace courts having 819 courts with 819 judges. Overlapping of jurisdictions causes great confusion add to the confusion is that “some courts have specialized jurisdiction, whereas others have broad authority to handle a variety of cases” (277) creating a “hodgepodge of courts” (277). Reforms within the Texas court system is clearly needed and many reforms have been recommended from merging the Texas Supreme Court with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, reducing the number of judges and justices, revamping jurisdictions for all courts and having no overlapping jurisdictions.
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.
The article Broken Bench explains the controversy over having “tiny courts” in New York State. The author, William Glaberson argues that the idea of justice within the jurisdiction of these tiny courts is unfairly decided among the justices in charge. Due to the lack of experience of these justices, it is difficult for fair justice to be dealt out. One of the major causes explained by the author for unfair justice is that the justices of the court are very inexperienced. For example, William Glaberson states, “Nearly three-quarters of the judges are not lawyers, and many — truck drivers, sewer workers or laborers — have scant grasp of the most basic legal principles.
The First Supreme Court was created and met in New York City on February 2, 1790. The “six man” Supreme Court met at the national capital twice a year, the first Monday in February and the first Money in August. The Supreme Court justices met twice a year also at the district court. Supreme Court justices spend most of their time traveling. Each justice is said to be given “to one of the geographical circuits and traveled to the designated meeting places within the districts of that circuit.”
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.
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.
The Judicial Clerkship Program is a joint effort of the ABA Judicial Division and Council for Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Educational Pipeline with the generous support of LexisNexis®. The Program is held for three days in various sessions and brings approximately 80 minority law students from around the country together with the judges and former law clerks. The Judicial Clerkship Program is designed to allow judges, law students, and former law clerks to develop close personal working relationships; improve students’ analytical, legal research and writing skills, and enhance participants’ career opportunities. Numerous students have obtained clerkships and internships as a result of their participation. The group participates in panel discussions, a research and writing exercises, resume workshop, oral arguments, and informal social events.