The Pros And Cons Of Supreme Court Justices

Our country has had quite a few Presidents in its day and with that come the good and the bad. Now, not all Presidents are either purely good or bad. There are some that mostly bad with a bit of good while others can be mostly good with a hint of bad. Now, no man is perfect by any means but there are a few Presidents that have done fantastic while in office and that have been a purely beneficial factor for our country.

The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with

First, it does not always reflect the will of the people. Since it is the people who elect the Congress and the President, I believe their will should prevail. The Supreme Court should obey the will of the people rather than relying on interpretation of the constitution. Also, Judicial Review may cause a president or Congress to delay some activity or law until they get an opinion from legal advisers as to the constitutionality of the action or law, (Clinton, 1989). This might affect solving some essential matters of urgency lest the Supreme Court rules against it

John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened. Marshall, being a strong federalist, ruled that state given monopolies were unconstitutional and believed that competition was healthy for business.

John Marshall had a significant impact on strengthening the national government during his term as Chief Justice from 1800-1830. Marshall achieved this goal by strengthening the power of the Supreme Court in three main court cases. In Marbury v. Madison Marshall established the practice of judicial review, then in McCulloch v. Maryland he weakened the central government and Gibbons v. Ogden provided the federal government with the ability to regulate interstate commerce.

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:

Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. His father left his family when he was young. That, and other issues as the years passed led his family into money problems. Clarence and his brother were sent to live with their grandfather and step-grandmother. His grandfather had a major influence on his religious beliefs. He transferred to St. John Vianney Minor Seminary while in high school and graduated from there in 1967. After the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. he heard some of his classmates at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Missouri making fun of his death. This led him to quit seminary and eventually attend Yale University Law School. After graduating from Yale, he worked for many years as a lawyer for the agricultural giant Monsanto. Then he moved to Washington D.C. where he worked some for President Ronald Reagan. In 1991 Thomas replaced the previous Supreme Court Justice and became the second African American justice to serve on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was a part of many important Supreme Court Cases. A few of them include Morse v. Frederick, United States v. Morrison, and Grutter v. Bollinger.

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.

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.

Diversity has been recognised as a valuable initiative in the advancement of a workplace, however recent studies in England and Wales show that the judiciary remains largely imbalanced . For decades diversity has been a central matter within the legal sphere but according to a recent report by the Council of Europe published at the end of 2014, women only make up 25% of judges in England and Wales and to this day, Lady Hale remains the only representative for women in the Supreme Court . Furthermore, diversity statistics in 2015 concluded that the percentage of BME judges remains unchanged at 7%. Damning statistics such as these prove that the judiciary is currently in a detrimental situation, particularly because diversifying the workplace encourages innovation:

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.

Let us break down what justice is; justice is behaviour that is just or fair. So the justice system is the system that enforces the law which involves apprehending the accused, prosecuting the accused, defending the accused, sentencing and punishing the guilty. The justice system makes sure that every citizen is heard for and is helped according to what has happened to them.

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.

Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law.