The current process, through which the Federal government selects judges has been criticized for not having done enough to remove sources of politicization. Appointments to the judiciary are still often made on the basis of the political patronage of the governing party and party affiliation contributes to the way that a judges decides cases. While elected judges are similar to appointed judges on the issue of independence, electing judges is not an effective method to resolve this shortcomings of appointments as elections have the propensity to make judges beholden to local political cultures in order to stay electable. A better solution would be to change the current process to make it closer to the Ontario Judicial Appointments Advisory …show more content…
Their advice on the candidates is conveyed to the Federal Government, who is then responsible for selecting those who are deemed suitable for the role. Each Province has at least one committee responsible for the recommendation of judges from that jurisdiction. A Judicial Advisory Committee is made up of eight members, who are selected from the Judiciary, legal association, the general public, and most recently, law enforcement. Currently, the committee returns to the Federal Government a list of candidates who are recommended, or not recommended, which is a change from the previous process which included a third category of highly recommended. Another recent change to the process is that the chair of the committee, who is nominated by the Chief Justice of the Province and used to be a voting member, has become a non-voting member because of the inclusion of the new law enforcement member. Criticism of the Judicial Advisory Committees currently come in two forms: criticisms of the original process, and criticisms of the reforms to the process under Stephan …show more content…
Partisanship, it was concluded, has a strong effect on judicial decisions for criminal cases. Judges, appointed with strong Liberal ties, are 13% more likely to vote in favor of the accused in criminal non-charter cases and 21% more likely to vote in favor of the accused in criminal charter cases, compare to strong Conservative judges. Partisanship clearly matters, in criminal cases, however, it is important to note that there was no effect in family or human rights cases. Also, while partisanship has an effect, there is an effect of having judges from different political affiliations sitting together on panels with each other. For example, “A vote for the woman in a family law case issue, such as child custody or spousal support was 19 per cent less likely from a judge with Liberal ties if he or she sat on a panel with a judge with PC ties...” This suggests that there is some mitigations of partisanship that arises out of group discussion and decision
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).
In 1759, the Canadian Court Justice system was brought to Canada by the French. After the battle of Quebec, all of Canada then followed the English common law system except for Quebec 1. Based on my understanding and knowledge of N. Christie’s arguments and the Canadian court system, I believe that Christie’s criticism of modern legal system is fair and it effects our current court system today.
The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing
... of the judiciary as being one separate from government, in a non-political capacity whose purpose is not to question the acts of government, but rather to be the mediator when dispute arise (McLachlin, 2009). Clearly, McLachlin captures the essence of what the judiciary is. The Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most visible and trusted political institutions, which has shaped the country’s political arena. In practice, the Supreme Court of Canada does have a quasi-legislative effect on public policy.
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
... of the juror’s and their sentencing or decision making in our study but further research could be carried out solely into how political attitude could also influence the jury-decision making.
Partisan Elections In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple of year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs, I will talk more specifically about these topics.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
Trying to apply new reforms in the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws be based on democratic principles.
An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people
From this point of view, it is very naive to suggest, as some of the merit plan's followers do, that the plan takes the politics out of judicial selection. The merit plan is designed to put forth on the process of selecting judges, a variety of interests, that are considered to have a genuine concern in the matter and to depress other interests. Also, while the amount of studies and accessible information, regarding minority judges being elected, continues to add up, it still might be too soon to reach a conclusion regarding which selection process truly improves diversity. However, the merit selection is not a complication for diversity. When the merit plan is tied with the requirements that nominating commissions take diversity on the bench into account, when making their nominations, there is a far larger number of minority and women judges that will take the
The selection process of Canada judiciary, irrespective of court, are picked from legal profession. if the judges are appointed by federal government, that includes the judges of all the courts irrespective of their level in hierarchy and which are known as provincial courts, are qualified only if they are members of provincial or territorial bar for ten years or more. The independence of the judiciary in Canada is guaranteed both explicitly and implicitly by different parts of the Constitution of Canada. This independence is understood to provide stability in tenure, financial security and independence in institutional administration.
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
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.