The Ways Superior and Inferior Judges Are Appointed
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 brought in significant changes
regarding appointment. Traditionally all judges were drawn from The
Bar. Positions were not advertised and direct applications for
positions were not acceptable. The 1990 Act has increased the pool of
prospective judges by making judicial appointments open to solicitors
as well as barristers, so long as they have the requisite number of
years' experience of advocacy in the higher courts. Vacancies for
Court and district judges are now advertised and it is possible to
submit applications to The Lord Chancellor's department.
Prior to 1990 the traditional criticism levelled at judges was that
they were drawn almost exclusively from the public school background
shared by most practising barristers. This resulted in the judiciary
being a highly partisan and conservative body that did not represent
the wider public interest, but only the interests of the upper-middle
class. The selection process was highly secretive, with the senior
officials from The Lord Chancellor's department searching for suitable
applicants by holding private conversations with serving judges and
senior barristers.
The opening up of the judiciary to solicitors is a welcome developed
in theory a sit should allow the best candidates from both branches of
the legal profession to be selected. However, we have yet to see any
really significant increase in the number of solicitors becoming
judges, as relatively few solicitors have decided to seek the
qualifications allowing them to advocate in the higher courts. Also,
while solicitors come from...
... middle of paper ...
...ent with a huge majority. This protects
human rights and allows laws such as the new anti-terror laws to be
looked at. It also protects individuals in court from biased decisions
due to judges fearing the sack. This allows judges to make decisions
that no-one else wants to make such as not allowing doctors to revive
a sick baby again or long term prison sentencing. All this is
especially important in the English legal system as we have no true
separation of powers, with The Lord Chancellor having a role in the
executive, legislature and judiciary. It is thus vitally important
that our judges can make decisions for the right reasons without fear
of losing their job. The most insecure appointment is of course that
of The Lord Chancellor, which is dependent on which party wins an
election and surviving Cabinet reshuffles.
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).
...te Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs suggested a resigning age for all elected judges. This suggestion was focused around an apparent need to keep up fiery and element courts in opening up boulevards for 'capable legitimate professionals' to attain legal positions. It is likewise focused around developing group faith in a necessary resigning age for judges and to dodge 'the sad need' of uprooting a judge made unfit for office by declining health.
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
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan statewide elections. Mid-term vacancices are filled by appointment. State law requires that nominees are state residents and have practiced law for a minimum of seven years.
An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
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. This was the allegation of Justice Samuel Chase (Carliner), who served until his death due to his verdict of not guilty in 1805. As opposed to the customary impeachment of the President and select other political leaders, the impeachment of a Justice signifies nothing more than the investigation of accused actions of said Justice. The Justice shall serve for life, given that they remain in “good behavior” in accordance to the Constitution. Gathering from the history of the Supreme Court and its respective Justices, one impeachment, ending without dismissal, in the 221 years of activity is admirable. It would be fair to say that there could be confusion if somebody were to ask you what grounds for the impeachment of a Justice are had you no copy of the Constitution. Nobody has lived long enough to witness the impeachment of one, and what would be the point considering Justice Samuel Chase still served to his death. The near perfection of the terms served of every Justice is not the only reason that...
The federal government consist of three branches for each one has a specific role that protects and serves each person in the United States. The Constitution established these branches to enhance a stronger federal government as well as to make sure the states worked as one instead as individuals. The method in which it is used goes by Judicial, Legislative, and Executive, these branches go from creating the laws, to implementing laws, to finally interpreting the law. It became known as checks and balances, so that no branch would over power another. Once creating these boundaries, the government became more unified and therefore able to control the country much more formally through the courts. To see the beginning of the never ending, the
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 American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
•Solicitors had to serve as an in-between between the barristers and their clients. So they were “in trade” which was less respectful to become solicitor one had to be an apprentice for 5 years to a practicing lawyer
...Judicial appointment eliminates the need for political pressure and allows judges to act as unbiased mediators of political disputes. In contrast, judicial elections would damage the function of state courts to uphold the law, likely be more corrupt than judicial appointment by tainting judicial integrity, and jeopardize procedural impartiality. Thus, judicial appointment is a better alternative where its benefits outweigh the defects.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
The Analysis of Solicitors and Barristers 1) Describe the main differences between solicitors and barristers with regard to work and training. 2) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having a single legal profession. 1) Background The legal profession is largely middle class, partly due to the lack of funding for professional courses. In 1999, ethnic minorities formed 8.5% of the Bar and 5% of solicitors.