More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on judicial diversity in the supreme court
How has judicial diversity been encouraged
What was the role of the supreme court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on judicial diversity in the supreme court
Term Limits for the Supreme Court The Supreme Court is a vital part of our government. As such, we cannot afford to have the court handcuffed by political fighting between the senate and the president. Currently, judge Garland’s nomination to the court is being blocked by the senate for political reasons. Term limits are a good idea because we get new justices with different point of views, most American’s are in favor of term limits, and we would have less drama from political fighting and we will be able to change judges more often. The justices should reflect the population of the people. We need justices with different backgrounds. For example, illegal Mexicans, Asians, Africans, Americans, and African Americans. We need justices from
Preventing federal judges to serve for life is a good concept, except when the judges become too old to continue presiding. Setting term limits for judges would be a great idea, because it would add diversity to the court systems every time a new judge arrives. Some judges are just too old, and senile, to still rule on cases and do their job effectively; therefore, setting term limits would ultimately benefit the courts because it would allow for diversity, and a new judge who may have different standards.
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
The 22nd Amendment creates a lame duck and which stops abuse of power3. Presidents in their second term have been seen to usually suffer diminished power, particularly after the second midterm elections. This diminish of power creates a lame duck. The president becoming a lame duck, stops him from being able abuse of power. The 22nd Amendment also stops the country from being a monarchy. US. Senators and Congressmen don’t have term limits because their voices are balanced by opposing parties in their chambers, the presidency is different. The president has no similar
Lastly, partisan elections do not equally represent the population. For instance, the Hispanics were not properly represented as judges due to the partisan system and possible racism. There were only two Hispanic judges when Hispanics citizens take up more than a quarter of Texas. The case was charging that Texas’ system of electing judges violates federal law.
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.
There are many potential benefits and disadvantages to electing judges to Texas’ highest courts. The decision to elect judges is an interesting one. On the positive side, the Texas Judges are always in tune with what is going on in Texas currently. It keeps faces fresh and forces them to make the decisions that the people want by way of laws rules and state morals. It also holds the party ideals that many Texans want accountable. This is one of the common complaints about the United States Supreme Court. The complaint is that many Supreme Court justices are out of touch with what the people want. That they are not held accountable for their findings within each court case. Texas aims to stop this with elections every six years. The downside to this election based court justices is the same answer as to the benefits. They are forced to be in tune with what Texans want which is not necessarily the best for all Texas citizens particularly minorities. Texas judges cannot make unpopular decisions and expect to keep their job. So even if it might be the “right” decision, it is not necessarily the decision the Texas courts might come
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.
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
The jury system has evolved from a representation of all white men to both men and women from very diverse backgrounds. This is important if one is going to be tried in his/her community of peers.
Government exists to serve the people, and not the politicians, American citizens know this. Polls show that Americans want term limitation by margins as high as three-to-one, even four-to-one. Congressional term limitation is the most important issue of our time because the future direction of our country depends upon it. There is no other way to restore government to, us, the people. There is no substitute for term limits. There are many second steps, depending upon where you sit, but there is only one first step toward turning the country around. It is con...
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.
Torres-Spelliscy et al. (2010) encouraged diversity in the American court system and provided ten practices to attract the brightest female and minority candidates for the judiciary, and they are as follows: (1) grapple fully with implicit bias; (2) increase strategic recruitment; (3) be clear about the role of diversity in the nominating process in state statutes; (4) keep the application and interviewing process transparent; (5) train commissioners to be effective recruiters and nominators; (6) appoint a diversity compliance officer or ombudsman; (7) create diverse commissions by statute; (8) maintain high standards and quality; (9) raise judicial salaries; (10) improve record keeping (p. 3). Appointing minorities and females to the U.S. bench will increase public confidence, and it will also bring important value towards the representation of women and ethnic
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.