More handpicked essays just for you.
Need for reform in judicial diversity
Need for reform in judicial diversity
Need for reform in judicial diversity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Nevada's System for Electing Judges Compared to the Merit Plan
The Merit Plan, which is also known as the Missouri Plan, has been fenced by controversy since it was first came into play. The controversy about this plan is over the effects, disadvantages and advantages of the merit plans on the quality of the judiciary. Time has not silenced the debate. Other issues have surfaced in response to political, legal and operational factors. Advocates of the merit selection offer the plan as an alternative to the politics and fundraising in judicial elections, but the opposition believe that the appointive process itself is political, and that citizens have a right to elect their judges. Despite the doubts about the merit selection's success in removing politics from judicial selection, the merit plan has managed to gain approval.
There are numerous arguments that have been brought up in favor of merit
…show more content…
selection. The first of these arguments address the weaknesses of both the partisan and nonpartisan elective systems. These approaches do not welcome rational judicial selection: Also, it is common that the public is ill-informed about judicial candidates, and others believe that ethnic name recognition is the base for many voting decisions. Arguments against the merit selection are: it robs citizens of their right of franchise, it does not remove politics out of judicial selection, nominating commissioners are not representing the population, it allows life-tenure for judges who are hardly removed in retention elections and that elections are to educate the public, where the merit selection does not. The merit plan provides representation for four main interests interested with judicial selection: the public, the judiciary, the organized bar and the state political system.
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
bench. It might be presumed that these interests will be involved in the politics of judicial selection, which will influence who will be chosen as judges because such judgeships establish prestigious positions for ambitious lawyers, and because judges certainly affect the fortunes of individuals and assemblies involved in the litigation process. Whether the merit plan removing politics in judicial selection is a false issue, the main issue is whether politics that advanced under the merit plan effectively represent the public, judicial, legal, and political perspectives that are thought to be important in determining who will be elected. Politics can never be eliminated from the judicial selection process under a merit plan. To date, no state that has adopted a merit plan has opted to replace it with an elective system. This fact alone, notwithstanding the empirical studies and anecdotal evidence cited herein in support of merit selection, is the best evidence that it is the superior method of judicial selection (Goldshmidt). Nevada has made recent efforts to utilize the merit plan. For example, in 2007 and 2009, the legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment demanding for a merit selection of Nevada judges. The proposal was different from the traditional Missouri Plan in a couple of ways: retention election candidates would need about fifty-five percent of the votes to remain in office, also, a performance commission would analyze judges' archives and generate a public report before the judges ran for retention. The proposed amendment was delivered to voters in 2010, but was denied by a 58-42 decision margin. Voters denied similar proposals earlier in the years 1972 and 1988 (Global Reach). The state of Nevada is one of ten remaining states without an intermediate appellate court. Nevada attempted, a few times, to get an intermediate appellate court for the state. The Senate version of that bill, SJR 14 of 2011, met was approved by a 16-5 vote in the Senate and a 32-8 vote in the Assembly. Since Nevada requires a constitutional amendment to be approved by two legislatures, the bill has been resubmitted and holds the same number. If it is approved, this would be the fourth-time voters considered accepting an intermediate appellate court (Raftery). In 2014, Nevada finally passed and established a court of appeals. On November 4, 2014 the proposal was on the ballot and was approved by the citizens of Nevada. The proposal, which was directed as SJR 14 in the legislature, requested voters to amend the Nevada Constitution in order to form an Intermediate Appellate Court, which also known as a court of appeals. Because of the proposal's approval, all appeals will still be funneled with the Nevada Supreme Court, which will be allowed to assign cases to the intermediate court. The intermediate court will then function in the Regional Justice Center, located in Las Vegas, to decrease costs (Nevada Creation).
Over the past 15 years tremendous awareness has been raised around this and programs of preferential treatment emerged. These programs ensured equal rights for people of color and females in the work place, allowing for them to apply for executive level positions and earn the same amount of money, benefits, and prestige as a white male ensuring equality for all race and sex. Lisa Newton argues that, “reverse discrimination does not advance but actually undermines equality because it violates the concept of equal justice under law for all citizens. In addition, to this theoretical objection to reverse discrimination, Newton opposes it because she believes it raises insoluble problems.” Among them are determining what groups have been sufficiently discriminated against in the past to deserve preferred treatment in the present and determining the degree of reverse discrimination that will be compensatory. Newton outlines the importance of ensuring her argument is recognized as logically distinct from the condition of justice in the political sense. She begins her argument for reverse discrimination as unjustified by addressing the “simple justice” claim requiring that we favor women and blacks in employment and education opportunities. Since women and blacks were unjustly excluded from such opportunities for so many years in the not so distant past, however when employers and schools favor women and blacks, the same injustice is done. This reverse discrimination violates the public equality which defines citizenship and destroys the rule of law for the areas in which these favors are granted. To the extent that we adopt a program of discrimination, reverse or otherwise, justice in the political sense is destroyed, and none of us, specifically affected or no is a citizen, as bearers of rights we are all petitioners
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.
Gevinson, A. (2009, July 28). Supreme Court Nominations | Teachinghistory.org. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/22435
John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
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.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
As a result, this paper reasons that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action itself should be permitted to be used in case the state once again unfairly discriminates social groups.
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.
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.
... I believe the inconsistent nature of the selection process and the lack of a clearly defined procedure for the selection of candidates, led to the court’s decision that some classes of candidates were treated unfairly. Employers and government agencies alike should utilize legal services to ensure that hiring and testing processes are equitable and legal. The Lewis v. City of Chicago case was found in favor of the plaintiffs that may have been an oversight in which the city simply desired to create a manageable hiring list. Illegal classifications and hiring projection errors created a case where a class action group was victims of disparate treatment.
Ragers, Simon. / The Guardian (2012) White and Male: diversity and the judiciary. Available from: //www. Theguardian.com/news/databblog/2012/mar/28/judges-ethnic-sex-diversity-judiciary.
Harper Lee, in her novel To Kill A Mockingbird, explores the idea of how non-diversity in jury impacted court cases through gender diversity, differences in race, and age diversity. Gender diversity is important to ensure fairness and unbiased decision-making regarding courtrooms. Atticus speaks to the jury and shows that the jury is made up of men. “Gentlemen, a court is no better than each of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up.”
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.