Supreme Court Justices: Impeachment In The United States

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.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, Article III of the U.S. Constitution never spoke of the definite roles or powers that the Court has the right to obtain, saying, “the Congress should from time to time establish” (Document A). The government was calling for a loose construction, which John Marshall, being a federalist, agreed with. This relaxed form of government gives the judicial branch more power, increasing its privilege. Next, during John Adams presidency, John Adams had proposed that John Jay, an ex-Chief Justice, be given a place on the Supreme Court. Jay rejected the offer, stating how the Court did not possess, “energy, weight, and dignity” (1801) (Document B). John Jay dismissed President John Adams proposal, for he knew John Marshall would bring these positive elements to the Court better than himself. John Marshall was elected to the Supreme Court a few months following this event. Another impact John Marshall made concerning the judicial branch was in the Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which addressed the judicial branch’s authority over laws. The Supreme Court decided that it was the, “duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Document C). John Marshall granted the judicial branch complete say over the content of laws and if there were any contradicting laws that the judicial branch would get to decide what was best for the

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. This has been a topic in mind for many years. Should members of Congress have term limits? There are pros and cons of Congress having or not having term limits that many people use to argue their opinion.

It was the Presidential election of 1800 where Thomas Jefferson won against John Adams. Around this time, Congress had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This act altered the Judiciary Act of 1789 in establishing ten new district courts. This was to expand the number of circuit courts from three to six, add additional judges to each circuit, and give the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace. This act also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five.

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society.

The process for electing a federal judge is both a simple, yet complicated one. A number of things take place between the need for a nominee and the appointment to a position. The basis for the nomination and appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices is the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution:

In 1995, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. After the recent ballot measure adding an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate, was challenged on the grounds that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five

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.

In the year 1803, an ambivalent, undetermined principle lingered within the governing minds. The government and its “justified” Constitution were thought to be fully explained, until a notion occurred that would bring individuals to question the authority and their limit for empowerment. To end his days as president, John Adams named fifty-eight people from his political party to be federal judges, filing positions created by the Judiciary Act of 1800, under the frequently listed Organic Act. His secretary John Marshall delivered and sealed most of the commissions, however seventeen of them had not yet been delivered before Adams’s departure in 1801. On top of that, Thomas Jefferson refused to appoint those seventeen people because they were

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

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.

Since the establishment of the United States Supreme Court in 1789 the role and function of the court has varied depending on the need of the country. There are several different schools of thought when it comes to the purpose and the function that the Supreme Court should take, ranging from strictly ruling on constitutional matters up to weighing in on national policy cases. To evaluate what role the court actually takes, one must examine both the institutional function as well as the political function. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78 has been considered one of the most influential pieces of work in the field, as it lays the ground work of what he believed was the role of the court. Since then, many scholars such as Robert Dahl have weighed in on how that role has changed.

What is the preamble to the constitution? The preamble is important to the constitution because

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.

1. The supreme court is the highest federal court in the United States. It consists of nine supreme court justices. Federal judges are nominated by the president and approved by the senate. Once appointed the justices will serve on the supreme court for the rest of their lives, unless they are impeached. The court 's jurisdiction is its authority to hear cases of a particular type. The original jurisdiction is the authority to be the first court to hear a case. The supreme court 's most important work is the Appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority to review cases that have already been heard in lower courts and are appealed to a higher court by a losing party. Nearly all cases that reach the Supreme Court do so after the losing party in lower court asks the court to hear its case. The court issues a Writ of certiorari.