According to the judicial selection website, Pennsylvania does not use the Judicial Nominating Commissions as their method to selecting a justice to serve on the bench (www.judicialselctions.us). The justices run for election to gain a seat in the courts. They do this by campaigning and getting the necessary funds from donations and their political party. Elections in the state are held in odd numbered years. Once a justice is elected they can serve an unlimited amount of terms until the mandatory retirement age of seventy and are retained or re-elected by voters. Appellate Courts and Courts of Common Pleas judges serve ten year terms. All other court justices such as, Magisterial District and…
The Framers of the United States Constitution vested immense power in the judicial branch of the government. Over the years, the highest Court of the land, the United States Supreme Court, has ruled on a multitude of cases, making new laws and setting precedence. The American people deem the judicial body supreme and, perhaps irrationally, trust they will interpret the Constitution more accurately and ethically compared to the executive and legislative branches. However, decisions of the courts are not purely legal, but rather a synthesis of attitudinal, legal, and strategic processes.…
1. The state of Florida is amongst 16 other states that selects judges through the method “appointment-retention election”. A method in which a proposing group shows names to the governor, who then makes the appointment; appointees need to win a retention vote in the next election. It is not necessarily a good system because the selection is placed in the hands of the judges or attorneys who comprise the nominating committee and the governor, with only a impression of voter input. Reorganizers argue that the plan eliminate judges from politics and saves the electorate the problem of voting on judicial candidates when they know little about their professional qualifications.…
The pros of lifetime of judges in the Supreme Court are that they do not have to worry about the political pressure or to contribute with money for any political campaign. “The basic purpose of lifetime appointment is to assure the integrity of the power granted to Court Justices and protect them against unwarranted interference from either the legislative or executive branch”. (laws, n.d.). In addition, there are judges in the Supreme Court that worries about make a fair system…
This fact is solidly undisputable because when money and political influence are used in selecting leaders of any society, then it implies that there are those who will be left out of the decision-making process because of the class they belong or social status to which they are categorized. For full inclusion of people in leadership processes, justice and truth must always prevail (Mott, 49). Therefore, concerning the case of Texas judge selection criterion, it is arguably not the best practice due to a multiplicity of reasons that have been highlighted herein. Consequently, necessary modifications need to be carried out that are in line with the suggestions of this paper for the sole rationale of achieving inclusivity, an open display of service delivery as well as transparency (Maxwell,…
As a member of this committee it has been an honor to explore some of the concerns revolving around the judicial selection process in this Great State of Oregon. Oregon’s above average voter participations is an example of just how important democracy is to the individuals of the state. The committee has been asked to examine the nonpartisan judicial election process and to determine whether or not the non-partisan judicial selection has become increasingly partisan and more polarized. Both of which have serious consequences if unchecked periodically. As was said By James Madison in his writing of The Federalist No. 51, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard…
“Objective: Examine the potential impact on judicial independence that results from the election of judges versus the appointment of judges.”…
<html><head></head><body><p>In a nation of democratic governance, the United States has unquestionably succeeded in its own development and potency since the establishment of the Constitution. The United States was founded in hopes of having a truly free, full functioning society. In order to achieve such a goal, the framers of this country drafted the Constitution brilliantly and attentively. With the creation of the three branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, the Constitution also created checks and balances, the capability for each branch to check the power of the others. To ensure the continuing proficiency of our democratic nation and "checks and balances" system, it is crucial to equalize the branches by separating, and equally distributing power among the three branches. However, before 1803, the judicial branch was lacking such said power over the legislative and executive branches. It was not until the case of Marbury v. Madison that Chief Justice Marshall justified the power of judicial review to the judiciary branch, finally obtaining equal leverage among the legislative and executive branches. With the implementation of judicial review, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction and authority to strike down law, overturn executive acts, and legally bind a public official to properly carry out constitutional duties. Indisputably, the practice of judicial review is the main power of the United States Supreme Court to date.</p>…
When Justices are appointed, they take the oath to make decisions that are fair and according to the Constitution. The decisions justices take every day affect the lives of Americans in many ways. The Justices are given the heavy responsibility to interpret the law and Constitution. However, many times Justices get confused about the original intent of the law, and therefore interpret it different from what the legislators wrote back then. Since the legislators of the Constitution are not alive today, Justices have to try their best to make decisions according to the law.…
This would make sure that there would be a balance of older and younger justice to balance generational changes. Other branches of government have a time period. President could appoint multiple justices which could cause many of them to have the same ideals. Supreme Court justices should have term limits in place in order to reflect the…
Overtime, a lot has changed in the American government. One of these changes is the introduction of the jury system. Ever since the introduction of the jury system, the judicial branch has changed. But the question is, is this change worth it? is it a good idea?…
Although term limits would be a great idea, some complications may arise. For example, how do you apply the term limit system to the current justices? Since the…
Throughout the class this was a reoccurring theme, nine unelected lawyers determine a decision that could change the face of our nation. This can be seen in many of the more controversial Supreme Court decisions. For example, if Plessy V Ferguson would have been decided differently the nation would look entirely different. With the immense power that the Supreme Court has and its ability to shape the nation it is not worth the risk that they may get a decision wrong. Rather they should leave a lot of these decisions up to the legislators because if the legislators get something wrong their constituents will have sway and may be able to get it changed. Whereas, if the Supreme Court makes a decision it sets precedent and are therefore setting policy for the nation as unelected legislators. With this ability to set policy and precedent it is dangerous that we give them this ability with almost no…
My resolution is to keep the life tenure of a Supreme Court Justice. The life tenure is the best option because it protects justices from making biased decisions and allows for Justices to master their role in the Supreme Court.…
Every American that has registered to vote or has a drivers license can at any time be called to serve on a jury. There are mixed feelings about being called for duty. Some Americans see it as a nuisance that will disrupt their lives. Others see it as an opportunity to serve their country. Being called to serve, and actually serving is two different matters. A jury is ultimately selected by the judge, prosecutor and defending attorney. How they are they picked? How are they released? Maybe this paper will answer a few of these questions.…