Throughout our country's history there have been many forms of selecting a judge, some are appointed by the president with the consent of the senate also known as legislative appointment. Others are appointed by a partisan or non-partisan election. All these form of appointing a judge have its pros and cons just like the Merit selection. Merit selection arguably the most effective way to appoint a judge but it also has its pros and cons but the ultimate question is whether or not the retention election is a success or failure in the judicial system.
Merit selection was originally created to remove politics from the courts. The idea was first adopted by Missouri during the 1940's, at the times judges where influenced by politicians who made contributions to their political campaign and in return as the saying goes "one hand washes the other". Merit selection was designed for the specific purpose of eliminating the influence that politicians once had on judges. Merit selection was created to resolve this serious issue but this new form of appointing a judge does not come without is negative points.
During a merit selection once a judge has been elected they will usually run for a term that run for about six to eight years in length. After their term is over they go through a retention process which is when voters decide whether to keep the old judge or turn a new leaf and elect a new judge. These elections put the power in the hands of the people which was the case in De Moines, Iowa. According to a New York Times article Supreme Court judges were removed through a retention election after the judges, who were part of a unanimous decision, voted to pass legislation which legalized same sex marriage. In this retention election al...
... middle of paper ...
...rding to an article on Watchdog.org judges are spending thousands of dollars on TV adds right before their retention elections commence. This is where the basic principle of the retention elections fails. Again the basic purpose of the retention election is to separate the interest politicians and make it unable for politicians to use judges in their favor, but the money spent on these campaigns are provided by politicians. In the article on Watchdogs.org Chief justice Ron Castillo and Justice Max Bear spent $317,500 in campaign TV ads which raises the question, how are justices chosen, is it the judge with the most money or the judge who is most qualified?
Merit selection just like any other method of judicial selection comes with its pros and cons.
Works Cited
Sulzberger, A. J. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03judges.html
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).
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
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...
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
Life tenure creates at least three problems. First, it allows bad judges to stay on the bench for an indefinite period of time. Second, life tenure allows all judges, including those judges who were very good at what they did, to stay on the bench even after they are long past doing their best work. Third and finally, life tenure allows justices to “rig the system”, as their productivity and effectiveness drastically decrease, while they wait for a president to nominate their successor who has similar viewpoints to theirs (Lazarus
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.
remain on the bench. While this greatly reduces special interest money, critics call these systems undemocratic. Nevada has had some problems with the current system in the recent past. One judge was accused of sleeping on the bench and treating her staff like servants, while another admitted to various sexual improprieties. Because of this Nevada voted on moving to the Merit Plan in 2010 but it was rejected by voters by 57%. Nevada has also recently proposed an Intermediate Court of Appeals Amendment which may appear on the ballot in 2014. The measure would establish an intermediate court of appeals in the state. A similar measure was on the ballot in 2010, where it was rejected by voters. Those for the amendment say it would alleviate the backlog of the Supreme Court, those against it say it would increase cost on taxpayers and increase litigation costs.
Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
Eliminating the lifetime tenure for federal judges to a 15-year term that is not renewed would be beneficial to the US Constitution. When judges are selected they are used for tactical behaviors that Presidents and justices have used. When the President appoints younger people they do this to capitalize on their capability to sway the Supreme Court. When Clarence Thomas was appointed he was 43, and John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801 by John Adams. Republicans average age for appointees is about 50, Anthony Kennedy was the last one nominated in 1988 at the age of 51, whereas 56.5 is the average age for Democrats, and Arthur Goldberg joined the Supreme Court in 1962 at the age of 54.
...ies. Depending on the states’ political culture, the judge is elected through popular election either with partisan or nonpartisan elections. The political culture of the state affects the judges’ capabilities to make decisions. Judges are to uphold strict interpretation based on past precedent but it is difficult with social pressure. For example, moralistic Massachusetts passed civic unions for gays, however, in traditionalistic state Georgia would likely deny gay rights.
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
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.
...n process is very important for an organization to hire new members, as employees need to select the right person to do the right job. Therefore, employees need to read through applicant’s document and qualifications, hence organize an interview to be more close with the applicant, to know more about the applicants, see if they are suitable for the job position. Selection process can help the employees not to make wrong decisions, this is a good opportunities to assess skills, aptitude and abilities. (John, 2007)