Throughout the course of our nation’s history, there has been a debate about the best way to select judges. While most agree that judges should be impartial, objective, and nonpartisan, there is still much deliberation about the best way to achieve that. Judicial selection by descriptive representation, which is the idea that the court should mirror demographically its constituents in terms of things like race and gender, is the best way to ensure a competent, independent, and well-qualified judiciary. By reflecting the diverse population of the United States, judicial selection by descriptive representation would ensure a well-rounded group of justices that bring many different minds to each case, increase the public’s confidence in the court …show more content…
First of all, one of the main reasons to have a court that reflects the characteristics of the people is to guarantee there is a varied group of people looking at each case. The more diverse the group of justices, the more diverse the minds, backgrounds, and experiences are that are looking at each case. This is important because the United States is made up of so many people from very different ways of life. The life of a white male who grew up in a mostly white suburb in the Deep South, for example, is much different than the life of an African-American woman who grew up in a poor city on the coast of California. However, the decisions made by the Supreme Courts are going to affect everyone from all different backgrounds. Therefore, it is important to make sure that judicial decisions are not going to have unequal impacts on …show more content…
Many people argue that descriptive representation means the job could go to someone less qualified simply because of their gender or color of their skin; however, the job is already not based entirely on merit. In our increasingly partisan government, a judge’s political affiliations, party activity, and ideology are playing a bigger and bigger role in judicial selection. Descriptive representation can be a solution to this. By focusing the search on groups such as women or Latinos, political ideology becomes less of a factor because they are then searching for simply the most qualified candidate. Some argue that by focusing on group affiliation judicial selection, a more qualified candidate would be passed over. First, individual merit has never been the sole focus of judicial selection. Judges are often picked by presidents based on if they seemingly lean to the right or left in decisions. Furthermore, descriptive representation actually ensures that the people who are chosen for the job are the most qualified by focusing on their merits instead of ideology or political stances. To make sure no one could say the justice got a job they did not earn or deserve, only those who are highly capable and qualified for the job could actually be selected. Only the best of the best would be chosen because they would have to stand
The consequence of forcing nominees to do this test is going to force them to become radical in their views. The only court that is and should be truly political is the Supreme
This memo is to address the current recruitment strategies and employment processes used by Baltimore City’s Fire Department. New recruitment campaign designs will also be discussed in efforts to decrease potential discrimination cases and increase a more diverse pool of candidates. The recruitment practices used prior to the hiring freeze should not be continued. There is also room to argue that the current employment tests and recruitment strategies have had a negative impact on a particular class of applicants.
In America, judges have become too politicised . The government in power for example could be republican. They might appoint a judge who aligns with their political view and policy, causing that judge to interpret the constitution in such a way that allows the government to get away with something or may change rulings on a right. An example of this polarisation is the famous Bush v Gore case in 2000. In this case, a recount of votes in counties in Florida had not been undertaken, as was required due to the low majority.
You do not want Xlandia to be run on biases. If the people do select who are their judges, then they may be picking who will be kind to them, instead of being fair. You do not want a biased vote when it comes to the Constitution’s laws. We recommend that the Supreme Court should be independent and have the power of judicial review.
During Thurgood Marshall’s work in the Civil Rights Movement he said, “The goal of a true democracy such as ours, explained simply, is that any baby born in these United States… is endowed with the exact same rights as a child born to a Rockefeller,” (Adelman). During his work in the judicial system, first as a civil rights lawyer and then as a judge, Marshall strived to work towards a democracy focused on equality eventually becoming known as “Mr. Civil Rights,” (Archer). Although Marshall is primarily remembered for working towards African American rights as a Supreme Court Justice, Marshall strived for equal citizenship under the law for all people. Many of Marshalls ideas mentioned in his dissents stem from the lessons and ideas he learned early on from his parents and mentors during his childhood and college years. In his work in the Civil Rights
Chapter 3 Article 3: Racial Bias Among Jurors at Heart of Supreme Court Case How does the Supreme Court work and what is it made up of? These questions asked every day by some who do not have a full understanding of how the United States court system works. According to chapter three of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury the United Sates Supreme Court is the last and final word (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 59). Meaning that if the Supreme Court reaches a ruling it is set in stone and no other judicial or political person or group can overturn the decision (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 59). Nowhere in the article was it stated
I believe this particular decision was one made in haste and based solely on political preference rather than based on having a fair and impartial electoral process that would benefit society rather than the justices. The Supreme Court stepped in and decided the election for the voters, which was an
A fair and unbiased court system is necessary for the legal system. The role of the court is to correct any injustice, not to compound it. When prejudice and corruption leak into the courts, what recourse do we have for eradicating them from society? Our judges must be stalwarts of integrity because the power to move our country forward or hold our country back often lies in their hands. Judge Persky had the power to bring justice to a victim, to help her and her family move forward.
The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
Injustice in the U.S. Court System Everyone would like to think that each individual that goes into court is considered fair and equal under the law. Growing up you’re taught that the decisions made in the U.S. courts are determined by the wisdom of the Constitution, and guided by equal and fair minded judges and juries of our peers (Swanson, Anna). Unfortunately, this is often not true. Movie depictions, like A Time to Kill (Schumacher), demonstrate how unjust the American court system actually is.
At least four Supreme Court justices believe that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. This viewpoint offers no differentiation between “race consciousness” and “racism”, but is a quite common opinion. This sort of viewpoint is what may drive America towards class-based rather than race-based affirmative action. Because of the disparities in income and wealth, minorities are as likely as whites to benefit under a class-based policy.
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
Coker gives great evidence that supports racial injustice in the criminal justice system. She discusses on the Supreme Court’s rulings and accusations of racial preference in the system. This article is helpful because it supports my thesis on race playing a role on the system of criminal justice. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1997). Public perceptions of race and crime: The role of racial stereotypes.
The main draw to merit selection is the commissions, which “minimize political influence by eliminating the need for candidates to raise funds, advertise, and make campaign promises, all of which can compromise judicial independence” (AJS, 2010, p. 1). Unfortunately, the commissions are the main drawback as well because many people think it is easily politically influenced. New York is a good example to analyze which one of these ideals is true since it changed from partisan election to merit selection in its highest courts, the court of appeals (Becker and Reddick, 2003, p. 25). Remember, merit selection most commonly uses retention elections to retain judges in office, but something unique about New York’s system is they do not use retention elections, which have been shown to be politically influenced like partisan elections (Reid, 1999, p. 68 and 69), subject to change with public opinion (Canes-Wrone, Clark, and Park, 2010, p. 229) , and have a low turnover rate (Carbon and Berkson, 1980, Abstract), like most states with merit selection of some kind. Retention elections have the main purpose of trying
However, in balancing those flaws with their benefits, America’s judge selection process is satisfactory. Having a mixed system helps to aid in checks and balances between the government and the voting power of the