Looking at the article Depoliticizing Administrative Law by Miles and Sunstein, we explore the problem of partisanship in appellate and Supreme Court reviews of agency decisions. The evidence abounds that judicial review of agency actions is highly politicized. Republican appointees are much more likely to invalidate liberal decisions while Democratic Appointees are just as likely to invalidate conservative decisions. If Judges are assigned to random three judge panels and the panel is inadvertently composed of an all Republican or an all Democrat panel then the decisions that come out of those panels can play a significant role in regulation decision making. The biggest issue is that if these agencies are not being treated the same, then there is a risk to the rule of law based upon these politicized voting decision since the future of important decisions can be effectively swayed by a panel of judges divided among political lines. There is a lot of evidence that is presented showing that judicial behavior is, in fact, highly politicized in administrative law. This evidence leads to a question of how to remove the politicized bias in administrative review decisions. Is it even possible and what are the implications of the effects of any change that may be made? Article Summary The article is broken down into 3 sections. The first being the empirical evidence that is used to prove the authors thesis that there is something very wrong with the politicizing of administrative law decisions. The authors explore the key findings to Segway into the second section. Section two explores the evidence and uses interpretive questions to explore the seriousness of the problem. The final section offers up three potential s... ... middle of paper ... ...truly looking at the issues. The second Prong approach would be to ban RRR and DDD panels and require a mixed panel. The facts show that mixed panels are not shown to vote in a politicized fashion. Thus we can see that there is more reason to trust the decisions of the mixed panels than the unified panels. Another option would be to require five panel teams instead of the three. That way you don’t have to worry about the randomness of assignment. The odds that you will get a RRRRR or DDDDD team is low and if it were to happen, then additional safeguards could be put in place to review the decision (Shapiro & Murphy, 2012) The politicization of judicial decisions is an important one and understanding the empirical data that proves it occurs is the first step in deciding whether we need to address this problem and if so what solutions will be implemented.
The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, gives the public an intimate description of the justices who serve on the Supreme Court in the 1969-1976. This book also gives an unprecedented look at the daily work and personal lives of the justices. The book describes the relationships the justices have with each other and the relationships they have with their clerks. Woodward and Armstrong give the reader insight to the justice's personalities and their personal agenda. There is an appearance that the justices use their positions on the Supreme Court to push their ideologies and create laws instead of enforcing the laws set by congress.
Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? Is a conglomeration of articles and short essays that attempts to expose the federal court’s relatively recent intrusion into our way of life by way of immoral legislative influence; made possible by presidents, congressmen, and apathetic voters who have relinquished their consent without contest. The author, Mark I. Sutherland and his associates believe that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the three branches of government has been usurped by an overreaching, immoral federal court system. The book explores how Judges have been influencing and shaping social and political policy for years by legislating from the judicial bench. In short, Americans have exchanged the rule of law for the rule by the judges. However, it does a poor job in addressing other major issues concerning the federal court system as a whole.
In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
Such precedent setting decisions are usually derived from the social, economic, political, and legal philosophy of the majority of the Justices who make up the Court, and also represent a segment of the American population at a given time in history. Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sliced so deeply into the basic fabric that composes the tapestry and direction of American law or instigated such profound changes in cherished rights, values, and personal prerogatives of individuals: the right to privacy, the structure of the family, the status of medical technology and its impact upon law and life, and the authority of state governments to protect the lives of their citizens.(3-4)
In comparison to parallel economically advanced democracies, the United States in particular is prone to uniquely adversarial and legalistic means of policy formulation and implementation, constructed by the process of judicial review. With the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, common law, or using precedent as the basis of judicial policy making, has been a staple for American society. This British adaptation to U.S. lawmaking has evolved into an interest-driven persuasion tactic as opposed to statutory interpretation and democratic mechanisms. Americans frequently rely on legal threats and lawsuits, in which the laws that pertain, generally, are more complicated and prescriptive. In idealistic democratic models, the relative institutional relationships among the legislature, the executive state, and the courts. Yet, it is a false truth of the current U.S. governing system, in which author Robert Kagan theorizes is due to the American way of law known as adversarial legalism. Although a thesis in this form is hardly a new discussion, Kagan’s treatment of it ranges throughout the political spectrum, targeting both the atmosphere surrounding policy making as well as its political actors within. Kagan provides a chief explanation for adversarial legalism as a mode of policy making, implementation, and dispute resolution characterized by frequent resort to highly adversarial legal interests, that conclusively infiltrate American democracy and ironically isolate branches of government, discrediting its merit of freedom and equality. Through this examination of politics, it is apparent that the system is at fault, perhaps inevitably, to the continuously growing problem of fragmented government that align with various other...
The Senate Confirmation of Presidential Appointees is a complex process that has numerous opportunities for dissention amongst the major players. When the president identifies individuals to fill specific federal appointments, those individuals are required to go through a vetting process called the Senate Confirmation process. Senators vote to approve or disapprove those nominations based on a variety of motivating factors such as political party affiliation, merits of the individuals and national interests. This grueling process is a gauntlet of interviews, background checks and extreme scrutiny in order to determine if the individual can “perform the job” and make sure that there are no “surprises” that may come out later. (Davidson, 325)
In transition, the Supreme Court of the United States has acquired a number of powers over the years. However, one power, in particular, is of great magnitude, judicial review. Judicial review is the judicial branch’s power to assess the legality of the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government, as well as the states.4 Accordingly, the federal judiciary determines the validity of such actions set by the Constitution of the United States. In brief, judicial review allows the court to determine whether or not legislation that is passed within government follows the guidelines of the United States Constitution. With this in mind, Judicial review proves to serve as an example of the separation of powers in the United States government.
Hall, Daniel E. Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.
...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
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.
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.
After oral arguments, Justices have their conference discussions about the case, which serve two purposes. First, during these conferences, the Justices discuss new issues brought up during the proceedings that were not disclosed in the briefs (Johnson 84). Second, during these discussions, Justices address how external actors might react to their decisions (Johnson 85). As stated by Justice Stevens, oral arguments raise issues about policy that are not included in the briefs for the Justices to consider when making decisions (Johnson 91). This is why Justices must have all the information needed about the policy preferences of all external actors in order to set the boundaries for themselves and avoid backlash (Johnson 85). For that reason, the information that Justices learn during oral argument helps them get clarity on specific as they became known during the proceedings (Johnson 95). The majority of the issues raised during oral arguments have to do with the Justice’s the public policy preference of external actors’ policy. Other issues raised by Justices during oral arguments have to do with political policy. The reason political policy questions are raised is to avoid backlash from political actors. As a result, oral arguments help justices in their decision-making process (Johnson
Neubauer, David W. Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. University of New Orleans:
Politics-Administration Dichotomy essentially has a two part meaning; there are two functions of government for this idea, as the name implies politics, and administration. The argument about the dichotomy between politics and public administration has been around for several years with no overall consensus on why they should be distinct from one another. Looking critically at both sides of the idea, there are ways to demonstrate an accurate presentation of the administrative agencies working and there are also ways they have proved to be inaccurate. There are just as many downfalls to a politicized bureaucracy. There will be more benefits to the politics-administration dichotomy view with the concept put in place by Woodrow Wilson. He simply promotes a clear distinction between politics and administration and supports the idea that they are interdependent of one another, and they require one another for the appropriate balance between democracy and efficiency. The idea of Wilson’s concept will allow agencies to gain the most efficiency through interdependence of politics-administration.