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?
An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people
…show more content…
One of those disadvantages is that people cannot be certain that an elected candidate will be the better judge. Judges should be appointed based on their legal training, education, and experience. People often times do not take into account those issues of a judge. They simply vote in the best politician based upon that candidate’s presentation and politics. Another issue is campaign contributions given to candidates during election times. Many people see this as “buying a judge”. If that candidate is given large sums of money from a donor to help his election, then if elected, that judge will feel obligated to rule in that donor’s favor. Elected judges may not be more qualified than their opponent. But because they can raise more money, then they are elected easily. Furthermore, once a judge has won an election, the judge becomes indebted to the corporations and/or unions that contributed to his or her …show more content…
Many judges, whether appointed or elected, tend to serve for life. Often times, once they are in place, then it is very difficult to remove them. The advantage of having judges that are older is for their experience and wisdom. These judges are typically able to make sound judgments. They have obtained a degree of respect from their community and judicial colleagues. If a judge is able to maintain a sound mind and is physically fit to stay on the bench, then there should not be a cause of concern. However, with the aging process, the human body begins to decline. Unfortunately, sound judgment and memory begins to diminish. The body begins to weaken and it becomes increasingly difficult for a judge to keep up with the demand for the job. Often time than not, the judge is the one who decides when he should step down. If he a defiant person, then that decision will be a difficult one for him to make even though his stepping down would be for the betterment of all people. Most judges are able to continue serving even into advanced ages. As long as they are capable, then they should continue to do
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).
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
In conclusion, partisan elections are hindering the election process for judges. The cost of partisan elections is more money than nonpartisan elections. partisan elections are more likely to lead to straight ticket voting, which can cause mindless voting or flawed voting. Partisan elections lead to more campaign contributions and can cause constituencies to interfere. Finally, partisan elections do not equally represent the population. Therefore, partisan elections are inferring and hinder the Texas judge positions more than nonpartisan
However, this is not the only option. Being appointed without the possibility of renewal, such as an 18-year term limit, would accomplish the same goal. In both situations, the judges would not have to seek reappointment, run for office, or worry about their political popularity.
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.
As stated in “How Far is a Judge Free in Rendering a Decision?”, there are “conflicting interests” in society. However, there are times when a Judge could be in doubt and cannot tell that society would have a must more just handle on the matter. I believe that public opinion should act as a backbone in the selection of a Supreme Court nominee, but should not dominate the process. Supreme Court Judges make decisions which affect society as a whole, especially particular groups of people. Society has a vast variety of opinions on a vast array of issues, ranging from abortion to gun control to war. However, some Americans may want a Judge to be on the Court because the Judge has the same opinion as them. They may not take the credentials and past experience of the Judge into consideration, allowing for them to be blinded by their own bias. Americans are also selfish in this sense, by wanting a Judge to serve on the Court because he or she shares the same opinion as them on a particular matter but fails to acknowledge how this opinion could affect the lives of millions. I also think that the Senate would confirm a nominee for a vacancy on the Court if public opinion was factored into the selection, rather than it just being the President’s
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for. and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of one's peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence.
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...
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
is one of the sole purposes of the Supreme Court of the United States. Many
I do agree that when judges or justices are appointed or elected as a Supreme Court or local appellate judges, it helps advance a political agenda or viewpoints. The Supreme Court Justice appointment is very significant in American Politics, and the appointment is significant because it is an enormous federal judiciary power which is the highest appellate court in the land (Hall, 2015). It becomes the responsibility of The President of the United States to appoint the justices of the Supreme Court. Congress also confirms them under the “Appointment Clause” Article II, Section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution which states that the President shall with the advice of the Senate appoint Judges of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices
someone could become a judge who is not as worthy or will be as good