In politics, a litmus test is a question asked to a candidate or nominee for higher office, the answer that they give is used and interpreted by whomever the nominating official is so they can determine whether or not the candidate is good enough or has a good enough state of mind to move forward with the nomination or appointment. These litmus test usually have to do with situations or problems that the individual being questioned may encounter if they indeed are selected for appointment to whatever office they are trying to be appointed to. How the nominee answers each question determines whether or not the nominee has what the nominating official is looking for. How a litmus test works is that when an individual wants to be elected for
Instead I believe that they should be selected based off of how intelligent they are in dealing with political matters overall. Instead of deciding whether or not someone should be appointed based off their personal beliefs, they should instead be selected base off of their previous experience and performance as a lower level judge. When referring to my personal litmus test that I created, I believe that it is a bad litmus test because it has to deal with a very controversial topic that many people argue about on the daily basis. Being a good judge truly does not have anything to do with whether you are pro-choice or pro-life in relation to abortion. My litmus test could backfire because people would confront me saying that I am looking for the wrong things in a federal judge, they will then lose respect for me. Also if I use my litmus test to choose a candidate solely because they have an open mind I may pass up on someone who even though they are pro-life, they still put all of their personal beliefs aside because they want to make sure they come up with the best decision to a court case. But I would never know that because I chose to appoint a judge based on their opinion of a particular topic, in this case abortion, instead of finding out what they would actually do when its crunch time and they must make a
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.
By taking the oath required, “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” (U.S. Code), the federal court judges are then protected by the other branches in the system. The other branches are not to have an influence in the judge’s decision. With the federal court judges being as protected as they are it means that they are free to make any decision they feel is right under the law without worrying about consequences. Which I personally think is fair because the federal court judges have to make decisions that society may not agree with, but it is what is best. Protection allows the judges to have free range of their decisions because it is going to better the society. The federal court judges have nothing to fear, they are safe in their decisions which I
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
Michele Obama once stated, “If my future were determined just by my performance on a standardized test, I wouldn 't be here. I guarantee you that.” The First Lady is, in other words, to say that standardized testing was a major factor into her life’s outcome and her scores could have potentially not put her in her position of power that she is highly recognized in today’s society. Although standardized tests do play a large role in any college application, standardized testing may not count as much toward one’s college admissions or success because standardized tests are not the only factor toward college applications, these tests only benefit a specific target group of people, and standardized tests are better used for giving insight on one’s
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.
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?
Since the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind program, standardized testing has become the norm for American schools. Under this system, each child attending a school is required to take a standardized test at specific grade points to assess their level of comprehension. Parents, scholars and all stakeholders involved take part in constant discussions over its effectiveness in evaluating students’ comprehension, teachers’ competency and the effects of the test on the education system. Though these tests were put in place to create equality, experts note that they have created more inequality in the classroom. In efforts to explore this issue further, this essay reviews two articles on standardized testing. This essay reviews the sentiments of the authors and their insight into standardized examination. The articles provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that standardized tests are not effective at measuring a teacher’s competency because they do not take into account the school environment and its effect on the students.
To teach to the test or trust the child; is the question in today’s education. Over the past twenty years state curriculum standards have changed. Teachers need to make the choice on how to teach the children in their classroom. In today’s society where testing runs the educational world, a teacher must decide how to prepare students for standardized testing.
How standardized are standardized tests? In America, we strive to perfect them as well as give our students an education they deserve but at what cost? Standardized tests have been the easiest way to ultimately evaluate a student against every other student in America. However, standardized tests are not as great as they are made out to be. We need to take a step back and look at the faults of standardized tests. Quite simply: Standardized tests are not standardized.
Standardized testing assesses students, teachers, and the school itself, which puts a great deal of pressure on the students. High scores show that the school is effective in teaching students, while low test scores make teachers and schools look as though they are not teaching the students properly. This is not always the case. There are teachers who do teach students what they need to know to pass the test, but their students are still unprepared. Although teachers try to improve instruction, student performance is still variable to other factors that the school cannot control.
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
... or appointed to their positions because of our supposed confidence in their impartial views when it comes to dispensing justice. However, the trend in the past few years has been for legislatures to minimize the discretion given to judges at sentencing, partly in an attempt to treat similar defendants more similarly and to avoid the effect of rogue judges. These policies have effectively taken some of the important discretion away from the very people who are supposed to be the most intimately involved in our due process. Legislators are too far removed from this process to be mandating broad strokes of punishment without considering each and every case on its merits. If we want to improve our criminal justice system and develop a long-term strategy for addressing the overcrowding in our prisons, then both "3 Strikes Laws" and Mandatory Minimums must be changed.
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
One of the biggest, if not the biggest, challenge you face going through school is the standardized tests you must take at the end of the year, every year, starting in third grade. You must past these tests in order to move on to the next grade, or you keep taking them until you pass. A big question many people ask is how are these tests beneficial to real life education? The student, the teachers, the principal and the school districts are all judged based on the average scores on these tests. So, if you put that into perspective, our schools are being judged based on test results when the tests themselves are not ideal education. They are not a part of the ideal education that the kids actually remember and help them succeed in their everyday life. These standardized tests scores are not a good indication of a school’s competency because it does not prove knowledge or understanding. They take light away from real life educational understanding and put the emphasis on passing a silly test.