Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Bush's Judicial Appointments
At the onset of the framing of the American Constitution, there was considerable desire to change the manner in which the Kings of Europe had the prerogative to appoint, demote, or fire members of the Judicial branches on a whim. They believed that, at least when it came to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, there would be less politization involved, a way to limit executive power, and allow Judges to feel less partisan in their approach to policy. The original purpose for appointing the Judges for life, then, was so that regardless of the current administration's views or leanings, the Judges would be able to interpret the Constitution based on their legal views, not the views of the current President or staff. This keeps the High Court relatively stable so that there are not swings every four years in liberal or conservative interpretations (McCloskey and Levinson, 2010).
In reality, though, the legacy and political/social thought of the sitting...
For example, even in 2012, the majority of federal appeals courts remained Republican appointees, which reflects the Republican domination since the Reagan years in 1980. This does not guarantee that the original political philosophies are followed, but tends to place decision makers of like-mind in important positions that decide cases that impact the philosophy and direction of the country (How Judges are Chosen, 2012).
President George W. Bush seemed to have a clear plan of action regarding his approach to judicial appointments. His view was robust, and pushed a conservative agenda that will likely affect legal issues in America for decades. For instance, Bush took an aggressive stance by changing the way potential appointees were screened. Bush eliminated using the American Bar Association, which had been in this role since World War II. He…
REFERENCES
How Judges and Justices Are Chosen. (2012). The Judicial Branch -- American Government. Retrieved from USHistory.org: http://www.ushistory.org/gov/9d.asp
Biskupic, J. (March 14, 2008). Bush's Conservatism to Live Long in the U.S. Courts. USA Today. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-13-judges_N.htm#appointments
McCloskey, R. And Levinson, S. (2010). The American Supreme Court. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Savage, D. (January 2, 2008). Conservative Courts Likely Bush Legacy. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/02/nation/na-judges2
This was the first time that the Supreme Court had deemed a law unconstitutional, and in fact this power of the Court had not even really been established until it was used in this case. Its establishment, however, was to have profound effects on the judicial branch's power over the legislative and executive branches, especially in making sure that the restrictions of the Constitution were maintained despite -- and
Judiciary These two questions will be responded to simultaneously as the answer to one will always involve touching on issues concerning the other. When we speak of three (3) departments or branches of government then we must necessarily refer to the "presidential system" of governance. These three co-equal and co-independent departments are the Executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The executive as its name connotes, has the main duty to faithfully execute the
Justices can make public pronouncements on issues that are important to the federal judiciary - not specific cases that come before the court, but general political and social issues. For example, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, recently made a speech that warned about attacks against judicial independence. He was stating what the framers of the Constitution worried about hundreds of years ago when he said:
After all, Ernesto Miranda who was the namesake of the Miranda Rights was a rapist and a guilty one at that. He was retried after his confession was tossed and he was re-convicted as were many of the other people that had their convictions overturned at the same time. However, others were never re-tried and it's safe to say that at least some of them were guilty. Conclusion In the end,
Judicial System Overview of the Civil Justice System and Its Administration Since the creation of the United States Constitution, there has been a clear distinction between the three branches of government. The third branch, the Judiciary, exists for two purposes: to determine justice according to the current laws and policies and to eliminate any legislation that is in violation of the Constitution. As with the other two branches, the Supreme Court has
Judicial review allows lawmakers to reflect changing morals and ideals when enacting legislation, but prevents them from allowing the hot-button topics of the moment to determine the laws of a nation. In fact, to really understand the success of judicial review, one need only look to the election in the Ukraine, where the Ukrainian Supreme Court may be the only body far-enough removed from party politics to ensure that