0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
in Texas. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the practice of electing judges What are the strengths and weakness of the practice of appointing judges?
Strengths of electing judges include that it gives voters a direct say in who will be making decisions on important legal issues, and can hold judges accountable for their actions if they are not perceived to be doing a good job. However, electing judges can also lead to politicization of the judiciary, as candidates may be more likely to campaign on their personal or political views rather than on their qualifications or judicial philosophy. Appointing judges has the advantage of allowing the executive and legislative branches to choose judges who they believe are best qualified for the job, without having to worry about electoral politics. However, this can also lead to cronyism and a lack of accountability, as judges may be more likely to rule in favor of the interests of those who appointed them.
Why is it important to the judges to appoint to office rather than elected and that they cannot be removed from office unless impeached?
· The importance of appointing judges is interpretitions of law and will not be subject to change according to a different judge.
Describe an advantage of having federal judges appointed rather than elected?
One advantage of having federal judges appointed rather than elected is that it reduces the possibility of outside influences corrupting the judges, such as special interest groups. Supreme Court Justices receive lifetime appointments.
What is indirect suffrage?
"Suffrage" is another term for voting (it's a take on a latin word). Direct suffrage would be a direct vote from the represented people to elect their leader. Indirect suffrage would be those leaders electing or appointing other positions, rather than the entire people voting for minor governmental positions.
Why do some people question the wisdom of electing state court judges?
The opposition to the elections generally circles around the fact that the general population has little knowledge and experience with the courts, and generally has no concept of whether or not they are doing a good job. Unlike the legislative and executive branches, the courts do not create policy or laws, and therefore are not meant to have political leanings. Therefore, the election is really a referendum on how judges run their courts, and how they view the law, rather that on public support for their political positions. Elections distract judges from the courtrooms, and force them to spend time and money on the campaigning process, which often has the effect of clogging already overcrowded courts. Of course, there are just as many arguments for electing state court judges as well.
Who are chosen or appointed rather than elected?
federal judges
The judges were very likely consecutive in arrangement rather than concurrent in Bible?
Yes. Although the Book of Judges records that there were a number of Judges who reigned together, most were operative at different times, with gaps of years in between.
What form of government do Albania have?
It is a republic where the president has a rather representative role (like in Switzerland or Germany), the most "powerful" man being the prime minister. The people is electing its deputy for the parlament and the parlament is electing the president.
What is the difference between the major and minor judges?
If you're asking about the Book of Judges, no distinction is made concerning major or minor. Rather, some of the Judges are better-known, because their leadership is narrated in greater detail, while other Judges are mentioned only briefly (Judges 12:8-15). This does not mean that they were minor in any way, but simply that there was quiet during their lifetime. See also:More about the Judges
What is another name for the merit selection of judges?
Another name for the merit selection of judges is the "Missouri Plan" or the "Judicial Merit Selection System." It is a method used to appoint judges based on their qualifications and experience rather than through political appointments or elections.
Why the are called as major and minor judges?
"Major" and "minor" judges typically refer to judges who preside over different levels of courts. Major judges are typically judges who preside over higher courts, such as appellate courts or supreme courts, while minor judges preside over lower courts, such as district courts or municipal courts. The distinction is based on the level of court they preside over rather than their authority or importance.
Why don't judges rule to the law rather than political parties?
The judiciary of democratic nations, judges are sworn to enforce and make decisions based on the laws that govern the judicial branch of government in any given country.
