The subject of judicial selection; election or appointment, has been an important debate through which a century's worth of scholars have debated and analyzed. Due to the nature of judicial independence, the judiciary can be manipulated to prevent the discovery of illegal acts of state officials. Through judicial independence, the courts become mechanisms for defence of constitutionalism and justice. "Full judicial independence can be defined as a condition in which judges are entirely free from negative consequences for their decisions on the bench. The degree of judicial independence is the degree of such freedom." Lobby group funding, voter apathy and the lack of job security in the profession all effect judicial independence. For those …show more content…
The standard sources of funding are the candidates themselves, individuals with whom they have some kind of association and dependent upon the region in which they live, a political party. More recently interest and lobby groups with a strong stake in court policies have emerged as prominent funders for those vying to be elected. Those who have stakes in court decisions for things like business, labour or professional groups will fund judges campaigns in order to have those segments of the bar represent their interests in trial. It has become a key source of the growth in judicial campaign spending. Some rules exist in terms of what interest groups can pay for. Judicial candidates can avoid these rules to some extent and bodies other than candidates, are not bound by them, for example, the constituents of the district or state. This often means interest groups, or political parties can run independent campaigns supporting a candidate, and raise issues of legal policy or attacking other candidates. As I will explain further on, the ruling of legal policy itself can be just as big of a compromise to judicial independence as the funding provided by lobby …show more content…
The strong reminder being that at the end of the term they will have to endure the same process of campaigning to ensure they will have a job for the following term. Judges may be more likely to rule in favour of public opinion in order to sway public feeling about their decision making. Most notably, criminal court judges are painted as "soft on crime" if they read into a law in a way the public does not agree with. Crime has a large impact because much of society believes in lowering crime rates; "Convincing voters that a judge is unwilling to impose or uphold death sentences is uniquely effective because capital punishment is especially salient and easy to understand. These conditions are reflected in the success of some opposition campaigns based on the death penalty." Justices have been voted off the bench because of the way their opinions about crime were portrayed. The fact that to stay on the bench, one must stray from the very basis of judicial independence proves that elected judges should not exist. Reminded that full judicial independence is a condition in which judges are entirely free from negative consequences for their decisions on the bench, rendering judges independent is to provide lengthy and secure tenure. Independent judges; those appointed to their position, spend a greater amount of time in office, and as a result produce more
The type of elections is widely criticized for delivering less qualified results, considering the fact that the public does not have enough information on judicial candidates and their qualifications. Furthermore, judicial candidates are not allowed to take stands on controversial issues or specific cases in accordance with the Judicial Code of Conduct (Corriher, 2012).
The strategic model acknowledges that judges seek to achieve policy goals, but it also acknowledges that they are subject to certain restrictions in doing so. Since they cannot act accordingly to preference, they must act strategically to achieve their goals given by the restrictions. It argues that like politicians, justices make their decisions based off other’s decisions or make their decisions while trying to determine how another person will react from it. This decision style says justices would base their decisions on the influence of other justices.
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 William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people
The sentence for murder appears to be getting less severe as time passes. Crime is rampant and out of control. There must be a system to prevent these people from committing such grievous acts (Balanced Politics). Time spent in jail often is a means of stopping a few; but much more is needed in order to prevent recidivism. In some court cases a wide range of punishments that would cut the rate of crime should be available to prosecutors and judges (Balanced Politics). A judge could sentence a person to life in prison; but the criminal justice system may set this very same person free after ten or fifteen years in prison. Why must we put our trust in a judicial system that will let these vicious offenders out in society after ten or fifteen years in prison (Death Penalty). The judge may impose a life sent...
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...
...upreme Court selections. It has been the subject of academic inquiry in a variety of fields, as well as law, economics, and public policy. For the reason that our congressional depiction is founded ahead geographical boundaries, the lobbyists who have a word for the a variety of commercial economic, and additional functional interests of the country serve up a functional purpose and have supposed an significant role in the legislative process
Their long term in office liberates judges from partisan burdens and inhibits attacks on judicial power by the executive and legislative branch. Independence gives the judicial branch the ability to guard the Constitution and the rights of the people against the legislature. That means that he believes that the judicial branch is less likely to abuse a person's as compared to the executive or legislative. He felt that judges should have independence from the sanction of the executive, legislature, and the individuals so they can satisfy the judicial qualities defined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution offers that federal judges are selected to life term thru good behavior, so the courts can remain independent from the other two
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012
Judiciary is the branch of the government that includes courts of law and judges. Diversity is important to the United Kingdom as it is not just a guarantor of public confidence in justice, it is also a characteristic of justice itself because it represents both fairness and equality of opportunity. However, the Lord Chief Justice has stated that “The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial roles on merit irrespective of background, but there is a real need to ensure that there is a level playing field and everyone has a genuine opportunity when applying for judicial appointment.” Judicial diversity is not just the combination of various judges from different background, it is the means to achieve the goal that a bench
The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.
Some people say that the definition of independence is a complex word and idea to try to define. In al truth independence is a perplexing word to try to define. This is because everybody has their own speculations of what independence is. Very infrequently are their two people that have the same perception of what the definition of independence is. What I perceive the definition of independence is the absolute freedom to do what you want, and to not be held back by any rules or laws of government or man, but by the rules and laws of nature and your own self concise. My view of independence may greatly differ form your beliefs on the definition but in this paper I will try to show exactly what my perspective on the definition of independence is by my experiences, my beliefs, my thoughts, and research on the subject at hand.