LEARN MORE...

question_1.docx

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Other

Type

Exam Practice

Uploaded By

WnpxfbaBxr

Pages

Showing Page:

1/3

Question 1:

Identify at least two (2) risks associated with selecting judges via a non-partisan election

process. Explain the key reasons why you believe each risk could potentially inhibit the

fairness of trials. Provide specific examples to support your rationale.

 Opponents of nonpartisan elections argue that in absence of campaigning by party

affiliation, issue-based campaigning becomes the norm. In these campaigns, a judge's

isolated rulings on specific issues—often abortion, gay marriage, death penalty and tax

policy—are publicized to the exclusion of less hot-button issues. And from Professor

Brandice Canes of Princeton University we understand that, in partisan systems, voters

know a candidate’s partisan affiliation, which they can presume will correlate at some

level with a judge’s philosophy and ideological leanings. Nonpartisan elections, by

comparison, provide no such cue. As a consequence, in nonpartisan systems interest

groups and others can more easily shape voters’ perceptions of a judge by publicizing

isolated rulings.

 Because nonpartisan elections are governed by codes of conduct limiting the information

a candidate can reveal about him or herself during a campaign, critics argue that

they violate candidates' right to free speech. In Ohio, a federal appeals court ruled in

2010 that candidates have the right to announce their party affiliation. The decision gave

momentum to the movement to open nonpartisan elections to partisan dialogue,

culminating in a similar federal appeals ruling in Montana in 2012 that enabled political

parties to support and oppose judicial candidates there.

Showing Page:

2/3

Question 2:

Discuss the selection process for a federal judge nominee, including the background checks,

senatorial courtesy, the confirmation process, and the assumption of office. Specify which

influences you believe are the most persuasive in the final selection of a judge. Provide a

rationale for your response.

The Judicial Nomination Process

1. When there is an open judicial position, the president nominates someone to the position.

Usually he discusses the nomination with key senators before announcing his choice.

2. The nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

3. The Judiciary Committee collects information about the nominee, including a

background check by the FBI, and reviews the nominee's record and qualifications.

4. The Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. Witnesses speak both in favor

and against the nomination. Senators ask questions of the nominee.

5. The Judiciary Committee votes on the nomination, and then makes a recommendation to

the full Senate, that the nominee either is confirmed, rejected, or that they do not have a

recommendation. Sometimes they decline to send a nominee to the Senate at all.

6. The full Senate debates the nomination.

7. A vote of 3/5 of the Senate (60 senators) is required to end debate. This is called a cloture

vote. If enough senators wish to delay a vote on a nominee, they can filibuster by not

voting to end debate.

8. When debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. Confirmation requires a simple

majority of the senators present and voting.

Showing Page:

3/3

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Question 1: Identify at least two (2) risks associated with selecting judges via a non-partisan election process. Explain the key reasons why you believe each risk could potentially inhibit the fairness of trials. Provide specific examples to support your rationale. Opponents of nonpartisan elections argue that in absence of campaigning by party affiliation, issue-based campaigning becomes the norm. In these campaigns, a judge's isolated rulings on specific issues—often abortion, gay marriage, death penalty and tax policy—are publicized to the exclusion of less hot-button issues. And from Professor Brandice Canes of Princeton University we understand that, in partisan systems, voters know a candidate’s partisan affiliation, which they can presume will correlate at some level with a judge’s philosophy and ideological leanings. Nonpartisan elections, by comparison, provide no ...
Purchase document to see full attachment