Eliminating the lifetime tenure for federal judges to a 15-year term that is not renewed would be beneficial to the US Constitution. When judges are selected they are used for tactical behaviors that Presidents and justices have used. When the President appoints younger people they do this to capitalize on their capability to sway the Supreme Court. When Clarence Thomas was appointed he was 43, and John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801 by John Adams. Republicans average age for appointees is about 50, Anthony Kennedy was the last one nominated in 1988 at the age of 51, whereas 56.5 is the average age for Democrats, and Arthur Goldberg joined the Supreme Court in 1962 at the age of 54.
When a Supreme Court Judge has been presiding
The Republican platform was in favor of Cuban independence and setting up a government in Puerto Rico. It favored construction of the Panama Canal and protective tariffs. The platform warned that businesses should not infringe upon the rights and interest of the people. It also was in favor for equal voting rights for Southern blacks. That last plank made TR wildly unpopular in the South and would allow Parker to win all the Southern states (“Roosevelt v. Parker” 1).
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
Beverly, I am also a proponent of the United States developing a system of professional jurors. I also believe it would cut down on biased opinions and help rebuild people’s faith in our criminal justice system. In addition to the points you made, I believe professional jurors also would alleviate the process of the prosecution and defense counsel being able to stack the jury pool with individuals favorable to them. Although the U.S. is a country that is for the people, many citizens don’t want to set on a panel of jurors to determine the fate of an individual they do not know (Weigman, 2011). The main reasons for this is because, it causes them to be pulled away from their livelihoods, which for many encompasses work and family. Lastly,
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
Life tenure creates at least three problems. First, it allows bad judges to stay on the bench for an indefinite period of time. Second, life tenure allows all judges, including those judges who were very good at what they did, to stay on the bench even after they are long past doing their best work. Third and finally, life tenure allows justices to “rig the system”, as their productivity and effectiveness drastically decrease, while they wait for a president to nominate their successor who has similar viewpoints to theirs (Lazarus
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?
Judicial Watch, Inc., is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational programs, Judicial Watch promotes high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach. Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws to investigate misconduct by government officials. They then use litigation to hold politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities accountable
changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand
Judges decide the fate of others on a daily basis, from dismissing speeding tickets, to sentencing a serial killer. These decisions effect how the public views the criminal justice system and how the public views particular judges, therefore, judicial selection methods continue to be a much debated topic. There are currently three common methods of judicial selection: the federal system of appointment, popular elections, and merit selection (commonly known as the Missouri Plan). These three methods each have their own unique set of pros and cons. The articles I chose examined the different systems with the majority of their focus on the merit selection process and the partisan election process and how they affect the accountability of the
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to allow a multitude of additional benefits.
The controversial topic of whether states should implement public financing for judicial campaigns has two sides. Many believe that financing the judicial campaigns does not help at all, and that instead it causes more problems, also many believe that it’s not fair for states having to pay for judicial campaign, but in reality it gives advantages and in ensures that the justice system is not being corrupt and also that is working correctly to benefit them and that not only those who have power and enough money to donate to the campaigns have a say on what gets done in them.
While res judicata is a judicial doctrine, it also applied to determinations made in administrative settings. (See Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Resources Control Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 921, 944, citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 479; Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1961) 55 Cal.2d 728, 732.) The United States Supreme Court has held in U.S. v. Utah Construction and Mining Co. that “When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose.”
Judges and Their Roles The Lord Chancellor plays a crucial role in the appointment of all judges. The selection and appointment procedure for district judges, recorders and circuit judges is broadly the same. Suitably qualified candidates apply to the Judicial Appointments Department of the Lord Chancellor’s Department (LCD) in response to an advertisement. References are taken up, and wider ‘secret surroundings’ are carried out by officials within the LCD.