More handpicked essays just for you.
The structure of the federal court system
Legal judicial decision making
The structure of the federal court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
by “those who appointed them or from the public at large” (Hudson 71). “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office” (The Consitution Article III Section 1). After looking into the reason why judges are appointed and not elected I have decided that I agree with the decision of appointing federal court judges. I believe that having them be elected would be another stress in society that is not needed. For example, during a presidential election the presidents stand in front of America and state why they would be good to lead our country. Which causes a lot of debate within society because there are many sides and decisions that need to be made. If a federal court judge were to campaign I honestly think that it would cause more difference in the world and with choices, mostly because everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but in the case of being a federal court case judge, it is important to take in account every single persons decision. There are millions of people in this world and everyone has a different opinion about abortion, guns, laws, etc. Federal court judges need to not campaign out their opinions on things that could they could possibly see at the court because it would cause the country to see opinions being made that they might not completely agree with. Campaigns only bring attention and protests and unnecessary opinions to the table. It is better for federal court judges to be appointed because their opinion will be kept quiet and so will their identity in a way because they are to follow the law and nothing else. A federal court judge and the president have a few things in common, such as they have to abide by an oath because without one it is almost as if they are free to make a decision without repercussion if something happens. By appointing federal court judges they are subject to base decisions on the law instead of opinion. Really, the only difference that lies between them is how they receive their position; presidents get elected and federal court judges do not. But ultimately, both positions make decisions that impact the entire society in the long run. They have to base their decisions off what they believe is right and what is going to better our country. Federal court judges are required to take an oath once they are appointed into their judging position.
By taking the oath required, “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” (U.S. Code), the federal court judges are then protected by the other branches in the system. The other branches are not to have an influence in the judge’s decision. With the federal court judges being as protected as they are it means that they are free to make any decision they feel is right under the law without worrying about consequences. Which I personally think is fair because the federal court judges have to make decisions that society may not agree with, but it is what is best. Protection allows the judges to have free range of their decisions because it is going to better the society. The federal court judges have nothing to fear, they are safe in their decisions which I …show more content…
support. If a federal court judge were not to follow the oath that they have taken they can then be impeached from their position.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” (The Constitution Article I Section 3). Impeachment is something that doesn’t happen very often, but when it does it is taken very seriously. Impeachment means that basically someone is not doing their job correctly and they have done something to abuse the power and therefore can no longer hold that position anymore. This is one way of removing someone from a position or office without a jury or a debate about it. Stating within the constitution that, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;…” (The Constitution Article III Section 2). This allows the verdict to not be questioned and overthrown. Impeachment is only necessary when a judge does not follow the oath that they have taken and that the judge has made a
misdemeanor. With the fear of impeachment if something were to ever happen; a federal court judge is given a salary when they are appointed their position and after that the amount cannot be decreased in any matter. As stated about in Article III Section 1, “…a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office…” this helps the judges be able to make their decision without any worrying of the fact that they could be paid any less. I do agree with the fact that the judge’s salary can rise, but can never decrease. I think by decreasing their salary if something were to go wrong that it would have the judges stop making the decisions that would benefit the society and start making decisions that would benefit them and their salary getting raised again. Hudson’s chapter two relates to federal court judges because as he was talking about Judicial Pragmatists and Judicial Originalists it states in the constitution that, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...” (The Constitution Article II section 2). This certain article is one in the constitution I think should never change. I think that the president should have a say, but I think that it should be approved by other people as well. This allows the presidents work and thoughts to be heard and understood before taking any matter into his own hands. This is similar to Hudson chapter two also because, when he is explaining the Constitution and the two sides of it. Some people are going to be for federal court judges being appointed and others are going to be for federal court judges to be elected. Either way they both have their reasons as to why they feel the way they do. Hudson states that, “Strict constitutionists believe that adherence to the constitutional text provides the best protection against judicial policy and offers the best assurance that court decisions will be democratic” (Hudson 88). This relates to the federal court judges almost perfectly because Hudson states that court decisions will be democratic and that it provides the best protection and assurance. Judges are to make decisions based solely upon what in the end is right and what is the most constitutional. I do believe though that federal court judges need to be careful of how protected they are in their position. Judges have to respect what is set in place for them and not abuse their power. I would think that in order to be appointed into this position that it wouldn’t be a though in their mind to abuse the power they are going to be given. But sometimes people get on a power streak and abuse what they are given and then can no longer be trusted with that position. It is normal for people in a high position to get to a place where they believe that everything they do not say is wrong. And that it is their way or the highway which in the case of a federal court judge I could see happening. It is important to make sure that no matter what and regardless of what decisions are being made it is not because they don’t think any other way is right and that it is actually the right choice for the country. All in all, federal court judges have a large part in our country. They are trusted enough to make decisions about our people and society, they live and do their job under an oath that cannot be broken, they have no fear in making the wrong decision, and in the end they help to better our country. I believe that it takes a certain person in order to be a federal court judge because without them there wouldn’t be anyone helping the president make sure that our country is safe and okay for us to live in. The actions that a federal court judge has to face and the process that they have to go through in order to get appointed their position is in place for a reason, and in this case I am a Judicial Originalist because it shouldn’t change. This piece of the world is actually successful and so far there is nothing wrong in our courts and how our judges go about protecting us.
Federalist #78, written by Alexander Hamilton, is an essay to argue for the proposed federal courts, their powers, and means of appointing judges. In the essay, Hamilton claims that the judiciary will be the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.” He says it will be the least , dangerous because the branch will be the least in abundant use. This implies that the other two branches will be used more. The executive branch not only “dispenses the honors”, but also enforce the laws over the entire country. The legislative branch holds the budget for the country and creates the laws in which the citizens must abide by. The judiciary, he says, will have no power over the executive and legislative branches. He also writes that it cannot move forward the society in wealth and in strength, and cannot resolve any active problems that the country is facing in any circumstances. According to Hamilton, the judiciary could be said to have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” and that it must depend on the executive branch, even to make their judgments more effectiv...
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
The three branches of the federal government is the Legislative, Judicial, and the Executive branch. According to the federalist papers, the Legislative branch is the strongest branch since they enact laws, therefore, by cutting the legislative branch in half by creating a Senate and a House of representatives, it makes the separation of powers more of a level playing field. Furthermore, the Judicial branch is considered the weakest out of the three since it has "...no influence over either the sword or the purse... can take no active resolution whatever... neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must... depend upon the aid of the executive arm... for... judgments” (Hamilton, Federalist 78) This means that it has no monetary or military power and that it relies directly on the legislative and executive branches to follow their rulings which makes sure that the government does not have too much power individually. Therefore, since it is the weakest branch, the court has the power of judicial review, which is the ability to decide whether acts by the other branches are constitutional or not (Hamilton, Federalist 78). Furthermore, one should not be concerned about the use of excess of power since according to Hamilton these are good people who aren’t influenced by outside sources other than the constitution. The separation of these three branches creates a system of checks and balances in which each individual form of government is independent of one another and is able to ensure that each other do not step out of line (Hamilton, Federalist
Madison, declared the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and affirmed the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review averted the judiciary branch of the inherent weakness and lack of equality in power among the three branches of government. The independence of the Supreme Court is paramount in protecting the civil liberties granted to citizens. The judicial power afforded by means of the doctrine of judicial review is not superior or above the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. Hamilton expounds the power of the courts in the Federalist Papers No. 78, “it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both”, and judges should regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, (Hamilton, 2008). The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the
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...
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.
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.
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
How are federal courts of general jurisdiction different from state courts of general jurisdiction? State courts deal with every day cases dealing with state laws and regulations. They can vary from criminal procedures in civil or family cases, to lower offenses, such as parking tickets. They tend to be specific to the laws of each state, as the state is allowed to form their own set of laws to keep their residents “free and treat them equally”. Federal courts on the other hand, hear criminal that violate the US Constitution and/or cases that cross state lines , along with civil cases or bankruptcy cases. Both courts have appellate courts and interprets the laws (either state or federal laws). Federal court is more selective on the cases it
The Supreme Court and Federal court have the same authority as in the Constitution. This system is called checks and balances which prevents the sole power of any one of the three branches. In addition, this power can be divided between the states and Federal government. The Federal government’s role in “domestic and foreign affairs and how they have grown” (Fe...
In response to the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 the state of Mississippi brought suit against the President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, claiming that the laws were un-constitutional. The opinion of the court was given by the Chief Justice, and ruled that an injunction against the president could not be made for duties performed by the president within his duties delineated in Article II of the Constitution. In the ruling the court explained the president’s role in this specific case was not ministerial as the state of Mississippi had argued but was rather an act based on his executive and political duties. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall the court explained that an attempt by the judicial branch to oversee such duties would be “an absurd and excessive extravagance.” The opinion further explains that even though the court in this case is not being asked to tell the executive what it must do but rather telling it what it cannot do, the court must not stray from the underlying principle. Thus, the ruling in this case is that the President of the United States cannot be sued to prevent the carrying out of his/her executive responsibilities.
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.
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
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...
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