Essay on Missouri's Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan

In Ohio, "nonpartisan" elections vote justices into office. However, Preceeding these elections are partisan primaries, and each justice must campaign. If the justice wins the election, the justice will want to be re-elected as well. If they want their party to vote for them, they have no choice but to side with the party on issues, instead of interpreting the constitution as it is written. For these reasons, the Missouri Plan should be implemented in Ohio to prevent justices from acting as activists, and to keep justices from excessive partisan influence.

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

In the State of New Hampshire judges are appointed. They are nominated by the governor and confirmed by an elected five member executive council to guide the governor. This process is in place to allow residents to have faith in who is being chosen. The lowest tier trial court are called The Circuit Courts. The highest court is the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which is also the only appeals court for the state. There are ten Circuit Courts in the state which serve thirty two district divisions. The 1st Circuit Court serves the towns of Berlin, Colebrook, and Lancaster. The 2nd Circuit Court serves the towns of Lebanon, Littleton, Haverhill, and Plymouth. The 3rd Circuit Court serves the towns of Conway and Ossipee. The 4th Circuit Court

Legal standards have been proposed by academics and judges to no avail. The main problem behind these failures is the ignorance to what gerrymandering actually is and its connection to single winner districts. To end gerrymandering, a multi winner election with fair representation needs to be enacted, otherwise judges will continue to be faced with legal contradictions in the “political thicket.”

It was the problem of the Northerners that they cannot accept the blessings that were given to the southerners of land and its fruit as well as its massive laborers that provide for the increase of the land – slaves. The issue of slavery was so pronounced that the politics of the Northerners wanted to abolish this system in the land of the free. However, the issue cannot be settled in a mere perspective nor in the idea of patriotism because of different belief as to the origin and doctrine of the slaves. Thought, the Union as declared in the Declaration of Independence says that there “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of

I will now examine some of last election year's results. Voter turnout has decreased in the past years. There are two main factors that have been coming up in the past years. First, many citizens say that who is elected in office is not as important as it once was. Secondly, younger Americans are more cynical and disconnected from politics than ever. I think there is too much information out there and another thing that might be the reason this is happening is because candidates insult other candidates with their campaign ads. This confuses the voter like I mentioned before and makes them not want to go out and vote. In the next paragraph I will discuss why I think judges should be decided by partisan vote.

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

     A very recent example of the politics involved in Supreme Court appointments was the 2001 election. It was assumed that the next president would probably be making three new appointment to the Supreme Court. Because of this fact, the president could use this

Each state within the United States of America (USA) has its own unique judicial selection process within its court system. The judicial processes vary from court to court depending on a particular state. This paper analyses these processes, the qualifications for selecting the judges and the steps for removing judges from office, as it applies in the USA states of New York and Texas.

The polarized politics of the Roberts Court article examines the Roberts Court and its relationship to the Obama’s government after the results of midterm elections in 2014. It starts by analyzing the structure of the Court during the past 40 years. The court has been structured by electoral politics and it has been seen to be more conservative, divided and polarized in its decision-making and this reflects the politics of the post-1968 electoral regime. The article also looks at the impact of the 2014 midterm election. The article shows that the control of the senate by Republican will lead to constrain to the president’s ability to shape the federal courts proceeding (Clayton and Salamone 739). There is likelihood of the Republican leaving the composition of the current Supreme Court intact and also leave Justice Kennedy as the pivotal swing vote. It will also elevate the Court as a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections.

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.

The judicial selection process can be complicated at times, and different states have different stipulations as to what needs to be required to be a judge. In recent years, proposals have been introduced by legislators, governors, courts, and citizens' groups in nearly every state to limit the role of politics in the selection of state judges (global reach com, 2016). In numerous states, there is more than one method used when it comes to selecting a judge. The judicial process in the state of Alabama requires special schooling and obligations to become a judge. Judges in Alabama are selected in the partisan balloting (globalreachcom, 2016). The Alabama Constitution implements necessary qualifications before an individual is selected to be a judge.

State court judges are selected in a variety of ways, including being selected by the governor of that State in which they reside or by the state legislature. In some cases, judges are able to run for election if they want to be a judge.

According to the measure, supreme court and intermediate appellate court judges must be appointed by the governor, confirmed by the Tennessee State Legislature, and face retention elections at the end of their terms. This provided the state legislature with some input into the process.Which lawyers are selected to be judges is determined by both informal and formal methods. Major Judges are selected by three different ways. The first way is judges are appointed by executives like governors and the president. The United States Constitution gives power to the President and Senate nominate who will become judges. The second way is they are elected by voters Judges are chosen by a legislative committee based on each potential judge's past performance. Some states hold "retention elections" to determine if the judge should continue to serve.

There is a proverb that says, “Don’t fix what isn’t broke.” This statement is very likely as true as it is old. But what happens when something is dysfunctional? The ‘something’ in question is the coveted seat of the Supreme Court Justice, which many should know is not a position that is obtained from the amazingly widespread routine of elections. Not to let out any spoilers if you were not aware, the President is the nominator of Justices to these associate positions and the Senate is the deciding group with a majority vote. I agree with the practice, currently instated because of our Constitution, but can see how some people worry over its effectiveness. There has been one case where a standing Supreme Court Justice has been impeached.