reforming the federal judiciar
The founding Fathers of United States devised the federal judiciary in a successful effort to separate balance the power of the government they tried to establish. They believed that the judiciary branch must be independent in order to achieve the balanced government. The founders' idea was success for the most parts, in theory as well as in practice. Yet over the years, a few unintelligent judges, through questionable rulings, have caused many Americans to begin to question the federal judiciary. It is ironic that the only not elected government body has the final say over the executive and legislative bodies that are elected by the people. I think reconstructing the judicial body is necessary and the good starting point would be to pass legislation reforming the federal judiciary, which should include term limits and elections of federal judges and justices.In current system, federal judges and justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. (Federal Judiciary Homaepage) The appointment process works as a check on the judicial body by the executive and legislative bodies since the judges and justices owe their positions to the president and the senate. Even th
Also there were cases in which the federal courts ruled against popular consent of people and pass laws and legislatures to be implemented on unwilling public (Edwin). Term limits cycle judges out faster than the life tenure, and getting rid of bad judges is much more important than retaining good ones. Since the judicial body that works effectively and fairly is the backbone of the national economic and social development, some changes should be made so that the judicial branch can operate in people's interest rather than the president or the senate who select the judges and justices. In order to achieve true democracy, the Supreme Court justices should be elected by the people, by the popular vote. ± (Buchanan)Also the terms of the federal judgeship should be changed from the life tenure to limited term. It is the people and not the judges who are entitled to say what the Constitution means, for the Constitution is theirs, it belongs to them and not to their servants in office. Shorter (about 4~5 years) terms for the federal judges and longer term (about 8~ 10 years) should be given. Since the constitution itself was written for the people, people's view should be represented when it was interpreted for the people. First, people should be able to elect the judges and justices so that the popular opinion is reflected when the laws are passed and the Constitution is interpreted. Yet, since the society changes so fast, the court must change and adjust accordingly. (Shmidt 490) The recent study shows that average tenure of Supreme Court justices are fifteen years. These changes should be considered and passed into a law to restore the constitutional protections for individual freedom and self-government that were designed carefully by the founding fathers of this country to protect and empower the American people. ough this process looks rational, this appointment process has some negative side in it. The public's concern about the power exercised by the court and policy making by unelected judges has grown over the year.
Common topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
Teddy Roosevelt,
Fathers United,
Judiciary Homaepage,
judges justices,
federal judges,
federal judiciary,
federal judges justices,
life tenure,
term limits,
president senate,
United Senate,
supreme court justices,
supreme court,
judicial body,
federal judgeship,
court justices,
,
system federal judges,
popular consent people,
executive legislative bodies,
|
Acceptance Essays
