Supreme Court Justice Appointment Analysis

272 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Importance of the supreme court

I do agree that when judges or justices are appointed or elected as a Supreme Court or local appellate judges, it helps advance a political agenda or viewpoints. The Supreme Court Justice appointment is very significant in American Politics, and the appointment is significant because it is an enormous federal judiciary power which is the highest appellate court in the land (Hall, 2015). It becomes the responsibility of The President of the United States to appoint the justices of the Supreme Court. Congress also confirms them under the “Appointment Clause” Article II, Section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution which states that the President shall with the advice of the Senate appoint Judges of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices

Show More
Related

  • Pros And Cons Of Federal Court Judges

    1751 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Lifetime Tenure for Supreme Court Justices

    1624 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Term Limits In Supreme Court Justices

    1089 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Why Is The Judicial Branch The Least Dangerous

    666 Words  | 2 Pages

    Their long term in office liberates judges from partisan burdens and inhibits attacks on judicial power by the executive and legislative branch. Independence gives the judicial branch the ability to guard the Constitution and the rights of the people against the legislature. That means that he believes that the judicial branch is less likely to abuse a person's as compared to the executive or legislative. He felt that judges should have independence from the sanction of the executive, legislature, and the individuals so they can satisfy the judicial qualities defined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution offers that federal judges are selected to life term thru good behavior, so the courts can remain independent from the other two

    Read More

  • Georgia State Court System

    1956 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Second Challenge: Imperial Judiciary

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Marshall: Judicial Career and Constitutional Opinions

    717 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life influenced those beliefs.

    Read More

  • The Attitudinal Model Of Judicial Decision Making

    705 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Neil Gorsuch Is Shaking Up The Supreme Court Analysis

    321 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the article from Time Magazine, titled, “How Neil Gorsuch is shaking up the supreme court,” written by Tessa Bernson, it discusses how Neil Gorsuch is changing the traditional behaviors of new justice. One way he does this is by doing more than the experienced justices is did. For example, as Tessa Bernson wrote in her article, “Gorsuch a conservative nominated by President Trump, who was confirmed in April, waited just 10 minutes before asking his opening question at his first oral argument. Ver the next hour he fired off 21 more, posing more queries during his debut than any of his eight colleagues did at theirs.” This shows that the traditional new judges were quiet, bu Gorsuch acts like he’s been there for years because he doesn’t let

    Read More

  • The Court Of The Supreme Court

    2261 Words  | 5 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Electing Supreme Court Justices

    1322 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Essay On Louisiana Judges

    718 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the state of Louisiana judges are elected through partisan elections to come to be in their role, which means that the aspiring judge’s political party affiliation will be displayed on the ballot. [1] Article V section 22 to section 24 of the Louisiana Constitution explains the election process and requirements that judges must go through and have before becoming judges. [2] Generally and depending on the type of court the formal requirements to become a judge in the state of Louisiana according to the constitution are very simple because it only requires aspiring judges to have practiced law in the state for an amount of time, it also requires the aspiring judge to live for at least an amount of time before the elections in the district,

    Read More

  • Advantages And Disadvantages Of Judges

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?

    Read More

  • Should Supreme Court Judges Change

    1042 Words  | 3 Pages

    For example, the president appoints the Cabinet. Donald Trump is now appointing treasury secretary, attorney general, and CIA director. This means that when a president is appointed they bring in people that they choose. Meaning that when the people voted for Trump they had at least a good idea of who he was going to nominate in certain positions. There was controversy with Senator Jeff Sessions being nominated by Trump for Attorney general between the Democrats.There is also controversy with who Trump is going to pick for the Supreme Court (Yuhas, Alan).The change in law will fix this because new judges will be elected more often, allowing the people to know who they vote for (certain people) when voting for the president .That is why having the president choose who he wants as Judges is the second reason the law should be

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Judicial Activism

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.

    Read More

More about Supreme Court Justice Appointment Analysis

Open Document