Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History
There is a proverb that says, “Don’t fix what isn’t broke.” This statement is very likely as true as it is old. But what happens when something is dysfunctional? The ‘something’ in question is the coveted seat of the Supreme Court Justice, which many should know is not a position that is obtained from the amazingly widespread routine of elections. Not to let out any spoilers if you were not aware, the President is the nominator of Justices to these associate positions and the Senate is the deciding group with a majority vote. I agree with the practice, currently instated because of our Constitution, but can see how some people worry over its effectiveness. There has been one case where a standing Supreme Court Justice has been impeached. This was the allegation of Justice Samuel Chase (Carliner), who served until his death due to his verdict of not guilty in 1805. As opposed to the customary impeachment of the President and select other political leaders, the impeachment of a Justice signifies nothing more than the investigation of accused actions of said Justice. The Justice shall serve for life, given that they remain in “good behavior” in accordance to the Constitution. Gathering from the history of the Supreme Court and its respective Justices, one impeachment, ending without dismissal, in the 221 years of activity is admirable. It would be fair to say that there could be confusion if somebody were to ask you what grounds for the impeachment of a Justice are had you no copy of the Constitution. Nobody has lived long enough to witness the impeachment of one, and what would be the point considering Justice Samuel Chase still served to his death. The near perfection of the terms served of every Justice is not the only reason that... ... middle of paper ... ... bicentennial of the Supreme Court itself. Feel free to be surprised if the way we nominate Justices changes anytime soon, because how we have done it so far seems to be working like magic. Works Cited Baker, Peter, and Jeff Zeleny. "Obama Picks Kagan as Justice Nominee." Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 09 May 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. . Carliner, Leah. "Can Supreme Court Justices Be Impeached?" Congress.org. CQ-Roll Call Group, 12 Mar. 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. . "Number of Votes Cast Set Record, but Voter Turnout Percentage Didn't." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 06 Nov. 2008. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. .
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
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
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
To begin evaluating Clinton’s indiscretion as an impeachable offense requires understanding the original purpose of impeachment when the American government was first defined and justified in 1787. The Philadelphia Convention, tasked with laying the groundwork for a new government, was the result of failing autonomous states and too weak a central government set by the Articles of Confederation. James Madison, the ‘Father of the Constitution,’ recognized that such interstate futility led to the “mischief of factions” (Madison, 1787). Th...
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
With this many impeachments in the past, not to mention the presidents that resigned before being impeached, this goes to show that Congress really doesnt care if they impeach anybody because they can just find another person. But to us it proves they have too much power because it seems as easy as if they don't like somebody they can just impeach them and move on, but what does that prove? They can just push people around until they find someone to give in and have on their side for their own personal gain. I don't think so, but I think so. We need to be more strict on how Congress can go about impeaching somebody.
28 Sept. 2013. Rossenwasser, David and Stephen Jill.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
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.
Presently the supreme court has nine members, which include one Chief Justice and eight associate Justices. The Chief Justice Appoints each associate Justice to oversee one or more various circuits. Every year the Supreme Court has a term in which it revues selected cases. This term starts on the first Monday of October and ends either in the end of June or the beginning of July. During this term the Justices review one-hundred out of 6,000 or so cases with no clear guidelines on which ones they must look at.
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
Impeachment is “ a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body.” (Impeachment). This does not mean automatic removal from office, which is a common misconception. the article goes on to explain how in the United States, the reason impeachment is so rare at the presidential level is because it is quite a long process and keep the Congress occupied for months; due to this impeachment in only employed in the gravest of circumstances. Furthermore, it is not just presidents or federal officials who can be impeached, as 49 states (all but Oregon) have an impeachment procedure in place. Impeachment is considered to be an important part of the checks and balances that make the US government unique, however due to the complicated and time consuming process it is.
changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand
Gray, Tom, and Robert Scardamalia. "Civic Report 71 The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look."
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