During the 1930’s, the community became more and more displeased with the growing role of politics in judicial selection and judicial decision-making. Judges were inundated by outside pressures due to the political features of the election process, and dockets were overcrowded due to time the judges spent campaigning. In November 1940, voters amended the Missouri constitution by adopting the Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan. This plan was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. The acceptance of the plan by initiative referendum resulted from a public repercussion against the widespread abuses of the judicial system by the political machine in Kansas City and by the political control exhibited by ward bosses in St. Louis (Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, n.d.).
The Missouri Plan is a judicial selection process utilized by certain States in the US. The Plan unites an appointment procedure with the popular vote. Under the Plan, a selection committee offers the Governor of the state with the names of three candidates for office. If the Governor selects one of the candidates within sixty days, that person is appointed to the bench one year; if not, the committee makes the selection and appointment. After a year, the justice runs unopposed on the next general election ballot. If the voters support their retention, then the justice serves the number of years specified for the position in that state's constitution. If the voters contest retention, the selection process starts over. In the beginning “twelve states used the Missouri Plan to fill appeals-level judicial vacancies: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Tennessee, Florida and California ...
... middle of paper ...
...hat would work any better. Those who are in favor of merit selection offer it as a preferable option to the politics and fundraising intrinsic in judicial elections, while those against it uphold that the appointive process itself is political, and that, in addition, people have a right to elect their judges.
It seems that no matter what plan is used to select judges there is so element of politics and partisan that creep into the process. The question comes down to how much politics and partisan is wanted. It looks as if the more politics and partisan there is the worse the outcomes appear to be. The Missouri Plan appears to limit the politics that are involved and thus is the best plan that there is to select judges to the bench. This plan should be more widely adopted in order to limit the prejudices that are obviously everywhere in the system today.
Although a portion of Leuchtenburg’s evidence supporting his opinion on which case constituted a constitutional revolution involved the shift in the Court’s decision-making, the question of the reason for the shift in the Court begs to be explained. At the time, during the case of West Coast v. Parrish, the court seemed to be in sorts fueled by politics. The Justices were concerned with the consequences that could very well up rise from their reluctance to approve the standard legislation. In other words, they may have shifted their votes in hopes of saving the traditional foundation. Justice Roberts’ voting decisions would then need to be closely examined seeing that he supported the liberal side in 1934 concerning the case of Nebbia v. New York, supported the conservative side in 1935-1936 concerning the Rail Pension and Tipaldo, and then returned to suppor...
The conceptual foundation of the U.S. Constitution is that there is a checks and balance system within the government that was developed to ultimately protect the rights of the people. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), there is an ongoing string of rulings from multiple appeals, for multiple rulings, that derived from a single case. What is interesting to note is that the original charge in the case is not the same charge for the most recent ruling. The actual case that is being heard in the Supreme Court is for civil damages. Although the law is being followed in allowing for the checks and balances to take place, the history of this case took place over a period of nine years from 1977-1986. One could question the efficiency of public administration in delivering a timely decision. As each case reached a ruling, another appeal needed to be submitted for the new justification of the ruling. Many different actions were submitted for review based on the different findings for each new ruling. A mentioned previously, this process was completed over a nine year period, and in accordance
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
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 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.
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
Prior to the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the system of appointing officials was under the “ideal of holding office during good behavior”, which led to the holding of positions by aged and incapable politicians who were not properly qualified for the tasks and jobs needed to be carried out. On the other hand, Jackson had appointed officials from all walks of life to promote the equality principles of democracy. Jackson also advocated “rotation in office”, which meant allow as many people serve in office for the shortest possible t...
Smith, Robert C. "Supreme Court." Encyclopedia of African-American Politics. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2003. African-American History Online. Facts on File, Inc. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
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.
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