Advantages And Disadvantages Of Supreme Court Judges

In partisan elections, the party affiliation of the candidate is indicated on the ballot. This election method is constantly criticized and is only used by a few states when selecting judges, Texas being one of them. Several questions come to mind when discussing partisan elections causing many to believe that it's an inappropriate way to choose judges. when citizens elect judges in partisan elections problems arise when considering campaign contributions, lack of minority representation on the bench, perceptions of fairness, and lack of knowledge on the part of the voters.

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

President Obama publicly disagreed with the decision but could not change it. The President decides on nominations who are then put under scrutiny while he receives the ‘advise and consent’ of the Senate judiciary committee. There is therefore a small democratic link however it is very weak. Once a Justice is appointed they cannot be removed and are independent of the other political bodies this can be evidenced by Eisenhower’s appointments, a Republican conservative who appointed 2 liberal justices, something he regretted so much so that when asked if there were any regrets after his time in office he replied “I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court”. As stated before the judiciary is independent and once Supreme Justices are appointed they cannot be fired or dismissed this leaves a huge deficit of accountability, a key factor of democracy.

In the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court has the power to disregard the Constitution or listen and go along with the Constitution. The Supreme Court also has the power to do the opposite and decide which case goes with the law and ignore the Constitution. This document shows the powers between the Legislative and Judicial Branch. By the system of Checks and Balances between the Legislative and Judicial Branch, The Judicial Branch has the power to reject laws that are unconstitutional from the Legislative Branch. But in turn, the Legislative Branch has the power to approve appointments of Supreme Court Justices from the Judicial Branch. (Page 162 9.2, DBQ Document

Abstract — Religious influence on judiciary, especially when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, is a complicated issue, and it has been controversial in U.S.. Talking about judgement for the influence, it’s not all-inclusive by only dividing them into liberals and conservatives, instead, a comprehensive approach is to focus on specific cases.

When a judge is selected through executive appointment, the governor or legislature from the state they are in will choose them from a large selection of possible candidate. Traditionally, this process gives all of the power to appoint a judge solely to the governor. This process is the least effective of all three. There are zero states who still solely practice this method traditionally and there is a good reason for that. Essentially, the governor of a state can purely pick any eligible candidate. A governor could appoint someone that would help them further their political agenda. This is not a reasonable way to select a good candidate. There has to be regulations and systems in place that choose the most qualified candidate. Many states utilize executive appointment but have added methods to keep the governor in check. For example, in New Jersey a governor can

While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.

     It is nearly impossible to avoid politics during the appointments of high profile positions; therefore, the idea that Supreme Court is above politics when referring to its appointments is giving to much credit to that entity. The appointments of the Supreme Court, as with any political body, correlate no only to the media's portraying, but also to interest group the President wishes to appease.

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

I believe that the judicial branch has the most power because they have the power to settle disagreements about the meaning of laws and decide if laws and the president decides if laws or action.

I believe that the judicial branch is most capable of identifying fundamental rights for two reasons. First of all, it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret laws, which should include interpreting and identifying fundamental rights. Also, in general, when controversies arise, the judicial branch decides the ruling of who is right. Therefore, when controversies arise regarding whether certain rights are fundamental rights, it would work well for identifying fundamental rights to be the job of the judicial branch. The legislative branch is not as capable of identifying fundamental rights as the judicial branch because its job is to write and pass laws, which does not include a large amount of interpretation. The executive branch is not

You have been charged with an either way offence this means that you will get the choice as to whether you trial your case at the Magistrates or Crown Court. In this report I will evaluate the effectiveness of lay people presenting their advantages and disadvantages. I will also evaluate the jury system. As I have explained either way offences can either be very serious or very minor, which is why they are tried at the Crown Court or Magistrates’.

William the Conqueror introduced the jury system into England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings. It wasn’t until the 14th century when their roll came to determiner of fact in a case.

This list, preparation of which is laid out in detail in CH 6:53 S 10 (the Jury Act) is complied from information collected from