U.S. Court System in Texas,

U.S. court system

In Texas, officers of the court like the sitting judges and judicial candidates engage in lobbying to secure judicial jobs. They seek support from individuals they had, are, or will preside over their cases. This problem is not only unique to the State of Texas. It happens in more than 39 states in the United States (Cohen, 2012). Old-school conservatives have not taken this issue lightly and there have been complaints to the effect that it stands to undermine justice and prejudice the litigants. Such judges are more likely to be accountable to their contributors and ideological groups as opposed to the letter and spirit of the law 9 Cohen, 2012). Those in support of judicial elections have argued it ensures that the judiciary becomes accountable to its constituents (Cohen, 2012). However, for judges to be objective and independent and guard against issues of impropriety, the entire justice system must take into account the premise of Western law. In this way it stands to accomplish its role in law and governance.

Distinction cannot be drawn between judges and politicians because they talk and act like them. This has raised questions regarding the judges' authority and accuracy in their rulings. Judicial election campaigns in the United States have in the past decade taken a twist (Cohen, 2012). This was occasioned by the Supreme Court's decision in 2002 that declared that the First Amendment infringed on the rights of judicial candidates as it prevented them from announcing their views on legal and political issues. The Republican Party v. White ruling heavily impacted judicial elections. Justice is literally sold and bought under the disguise of First Amendment freedom (Cohen, 2012).

In Texas, special interest money is used to influence judicial races. This happens regardless of the fact that Texas Code of Judicial Conduct is against any relationship that influences judicial conduct or judgment. The code of conduct should deter judges from putting private interests over and above the obligations of their offices. Canon 3B (2) of the code expressly states that no judge should be swayed by partisan interests. Justice Don Willet, an officer the court engaged in judicial campaigns selling his conservative credentials. His colleagues like the Attorney General of Texas; Gregg Abbot complimented him by saying that he is a bright legal mind and an outstanding judge (Cohen, 2012). Justice Willet listed on his website the organizations and individuals who had endorsed him. These included Pro-Life Leaders, Young Conservatives, among other groups. The question is how one can square all these with the Code of Judicial Conduct (Cohen, 2012).

In January 2013, prosecutors in Missouri petitioned the Supreme Court to allow them obtain blood samples from drunk drivers without a warrant. The judges were at initial stages never enthusiastic (Liptak, 2013). However, a middle ground was sought with regard to roadside stops, body chemistry, and administration of justice in the modern age. Alcohol in the blood can only be detected within a specified time limit. Obtaining a warrant to take blood sample of a person suspected of drunk driving but has refused to take breath test takes longer time and undermines the essence of time in this process. The Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. together with other judges; however, expressed discomfort with what they termed government sanctioned bodily intrusions using sharp needles (Liptak, 2013).

Missouri prosecutors' petition was occasioned by a case where one Tyler G. McNeely was pulled over for speeding on a highway. Tyler, according to the Supreme Court, had the telltale signs of intoxication (Liptak, 2013). He had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and had the smell of alcohol in his breath. Besides, his performance in field sobriety test was poor. Tyler was adamant about taking breath test. He did not consent to taking blood test either. A blood test was nevertheless taken and the results showed that the blood alcohol level was 0.15%. The state court suppressed the evidence provided on grounds that the officers failed to obtain a warrant to enable them conduct bodily intrusions. The Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425, raised issues concerning whether dissipation of blood alcohol can justify taking ones blood without a warrant in case of absence of additional factors complicating matters (Liptak, 2013).

With regard to judicial officers engaging in judicial campaigns, I totally concur with the writer's position that this negates the officers' impartiality and contribute to impropriety in dispensing justice. The Code of Judicial Conduct is very explicit on the conduct of court judges. It also illuminates matters pertaining impropriety on the bench. A judge who has been supported by corporate bodies like the oil, gas, electrical, and chemical industries in his judicial campaigns is less likely to deliver a ruling that does not favor such bodies if the anti-employee decision in Energy Gulf States v. John Summers is anything to go by. The writer of this article is against the position of conservatives on judicial campaigns.