The History of the Judiciary in the United States
Constitution of the United States in the History: The Constitutional Convention Judiciary
Early on at the convention, Randolph of Virginia had proposed a Council of Revision, composed of federal judges and the president, to veto laws made by both Congress and state legislatures. The delegates rejected variations of this plan four times because, as Pennsylvania’s Gouverneur Morris said, those who interpret the laws “ought to have no hand in making them.” Instead, the framers agreed to create a single Supreme Court and to permit Congress to create lower federal courts. (1)
In this Section about the Constitutional Convention: Constitutional Convention, Congressional Representation, Slavery, Presidency, Constitutional Convention and the Judiciary and Constitution Approval.
Some Historical Issues
- Separation of Powers Does Not Require Isolated Silos: Better communication between the branches of government would improve understanding and respect for the processes, constraints, and challenges of the other branches.
- Social Networks and the Judiciary: If a judge decides the benefit of using online social media outweigh the risks, the “connected” judge must take whatever steps are necessary to prevent online socializing from undermining the integrity and impartiality of the judicial office.
- Surviving the Storm: The 2008 recession changed the funding landscape for the states’ judiciaries. Regaining pre-recession funding levels requires court leaders to advocate continually before the public and the legislatures.
- Congress broke it, now Congress must fix it: The broken judicial confirmation process and eroding public confidence in the impartiality of the courts must be addressed by all three branches of government.
- Federal Courts Peering Over the Fiscal Cliff: Sequestration threatens drastic budget cuts
- Rebuilding Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts: Affordable Care Act latest controversial ruling to spark polarization and disagreement
- Preserving Judicial Independence: Merit selection of judges has come under increasing attack, with Missouri the latest target for those who seek to politicize judicial selection. Judicial nominating commissions must take concrete steps to demonstrate their effectiveness, in order to counter this trend and maintain their important role as independent bodies free of partisan influence. Judicial Independence:The new threat from within.
- A significant battle, an ongoing war: Campaign rhetoric continues to threaten the independence of the courts
- Eyewitness identification reform: Landmark study gives law enforcement better tools to reduce errors
- The crisis in the immigration courts: The cornerstone American principle of fair justice, including timely and meaningful access to justice, is neglected in the immigration court system
- Supreme Court justices and the Code of Conduct: By explicitly adopting the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges they already implicitly follow, U.S. Supreme Court justices will demonstrate that they understand the connection between their conduct and public confidence and distance themselves from the contentions that they take their ethical responsibilities lightly.
- Courts under attack: Although attacks on the courts are nothing new, the latest set of proposals seems to have reached new levels in both numbers and acrimony.
- Ensuring access to justice for self-represented litigants: Despite the many challenges in dealing effectively and efficiently with self-represented litigants, we can and must deliver on the promise of access to justice for all.
- The challenges of judicial elections research: We need to take the new wave of judicial elections research into account to help us make judgments about what reforms to advocate and to give our advocacy stronger grounding and greater credibility.
- How should we respond to the 2010 judicial elections?: What happened in 2010 raises real issues for those concerned with costly and special interest-driven judicial elections, but the need for fair and impartial courts is too important not to renew our commitment to achieving that goal.
- The value of judicial campaign oversight committees: Campaign oversight committees’ opinions don’t have the force of law, but they do have the force of ethics.
- John Paul Stevens: A judicial role model: What Justice Stevens’ career can teach us about the attributes of a good judge.
- What should judicial candidates talk to voters about?: The public has a right to know how a current or prospective judge would address pressing issues facing the courts.
- Judicial diversity—an essential component of a fair justice system: Only through a diverse judiciary can we truly fulfill the Jeffersonian promise of equal and impartial justice for all.
- Cameras in the federal courts—the time has come: In today’s world, where television and the internet occupy such central places in peoples’ lives, the most effective means of affording public access is by permitting cameras in our courtrooms.
Leave a Reply