There have been many questions asked as if judges on local levels or higher, have paid in some way to help big brother companies. In this paper I will inform you, the reader of how big corporations are buying judges for their benefit. Also known as justice for sale, which will help them in the future if the company became part of a high-profile case.
First, let’s look at the meaning behind the term Justice for Sale. Justice for sale is when a judge is running for a seat and is favored by those who may need to use this judge in the future. They may place large amounts in the judge’s campaign to help get him or her elected guaranteeing them more leniency when a case is brought forward in front of the judge when elected. Let’s not exclude the attorneys that will eventually come before the judge. These are just some of the major players in a judge’s election, and a favoritism of those whom support his or her campaign.
When a judge is elected and is backed by major businesses, also known as big brothers, they are almost guaranteed to be elected into office. Frontline: Justice for Sale (Kennedy, 1999) stated "If there is the perception or the reality that courts are influenced in their decisions based upon campaign funding sources," "we will have a crisis of legitimacy, a crisis of belief, a
…show more content…
This was referenced in the video I watched (“Justice for Sale: An investigation into how campaign cash is corrupting Americas courts) Judges will not break the laws or go against others constitutional rights, but will find loop holes in the judicial system to help support the one who helped in his/her campaign which played an important role in their election. Also in the same video you will notice, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski and Judge Tom Burke have a very extensive and expensive backing of their campaign as you can tell from the video assigned to
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
Different countries have been known to deal with crime in different ways, some believe that we (Americans) should deal with criminals in a more serious and physical manner. In the article “Rough Justice A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishment” by Alejandro Reyes, it talks about how we should have more severe and physical punishment inside and outside of the U.S. After a teenage boy vandalizes a car in singapore. While in the editorial “Time to Assert American Values,” the writer attempts to persuade us and into thinking that the teenage boy, Michael Fey should not have been caned after vandalizing a car. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has the
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
First of all, judges play an essential role in our democracy, by interpreting the law and being impartial, they make decisions which keeps our country in a democratic state. Judges promote and support charter rights, including freedom and equality. A strong case that proves that judges are an essential part in a democracy is shown in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, John Obergefell was fighting for the legalization of same - sex marriage in The United States. On November 2014, the case went to the supreme court where it caught the attention of the nation. Obergefell was not only fighting for his own rights
By giving life tenure to appointed officials, the founding fathers protected them from political pressure. But, by taking away the accountability of these officials, the framers actually produced a perfect opportunity for krytocracy, a government ruled by judges. When a justice, or anyone for that matter, is secured with a job for life, there is not enough incentive motivating him to perform to the best of his ability. If the lifelong term was changed to say, 8 or 12 years, the justices would be more likely to keep the people’s interests in mind and to represent the public instead of being driven by their own selfish concerns. If the judges’ terms were limited, it would allow their actions to be reviewed, analyzed and determined right or wrong by the people. It would kee...
This problem affects everyone, but only benefits four types of people; the judges, the lawyers, the clients paying thousands more to the lawyers to win their case, and the police. Judges today are not playing fair, and they are accepting bribes from equally corrupt lawyers that are desperate to win a case and improve their case winnings over their losses. The lawyers are asking for more money from the clients so that they can secretly hand over cash to the lawyers and ask for “favors” in the courtroom. With all of this injustice, comes fear implanted in the client, who is then willing to spend more on a lawyer to guarantee their success in a case; “fear and injustice equals more money for lawyers and judges”(Sachs).
Economic Injustice in America "Class is for European democracies or something else--it isn't for the United States of America. We are not going to be divided by class." -George Bush, the forty-first President of the United States (Kalra 1) The United States of America was founded on the basis of a "classless society of equals," committed to eliminating the past injustices imposed on them by Great Britain.
In no other democracy does a court hold so much political power and in particular power over public policy decisions.
Does justice exist in America? Yes, justice does exist in America, but for whom is the question real question. In America all citizens should feel equal to one another but that is not the case. Rather than feeling equal to one another, the blacks and whites of the country feel hatred to one another. In American justice is served but it is mainly for whites and not blacks. The word justice is defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable. Unfortunately in America, justice is not always equally served due to racism in the modern society.
...upreme Court selections. It has been the subject of academic inquiry in a variety of fields, as well as law, economics, and public policy. For the reason that our congressional depiction is founded ahead geographical boundaries, the lobbyists who have a word for the a variety of commercial economic, and additional functional interests of the country serve up a functional purpose and have supposed an significant role in the legislative process
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
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
...Available By: Acker, James. Contemporary Justice Review, Sep2008, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p287-289, 3p; DOI: 10.1080/10282580802295625