Judges Commons^™

Judicial Elections: The Case For Accountability, Jack Park

ConLawNOW

In this article, Jack Park defends the use of partisan elections as a method of selecting state court judges. He first frames the debate and describes its participants. The author then discusses the competing values that supporters and opponents of judicial elections advance. Finally, Mr. Park addresses the arguments for and against judicial elections, showing that, while they may not be a perfect method of selecting judges, neither are the alternatives.

What Happened In Iowa?, David Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

Reply to Nicole Mansker & Neal Devins, Do Judicial Elections Facilitate Popular Constitutionalism; Can They?, 111 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 27 (2011).

November 2, 2010 is the latest milestone in the evolution of state judicial elections from sleepy, sterile affairs into meaningful political contests. Following an aggressive ouster campaign, voters in Iowa removed three supreme court justices, including the chief justice, who had joined an opinion finding a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution. Supporters of the campaign rallied around the mantra, “It’s we the people, not we the courts.” Voter turnout surged to unprecedented levels; the national …

Public Confidence And Judicial Campaigns, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

Aligning Judicial Elections With Our Constitutional Values: The Separation Of Powers, Judicial Free Speech, And Due Process, Jason D. Grimes

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note consists of five Parts. Part II traces the historical development of state judicial elections from the perspective of the Framers' doctrine of separation of powers. It shows that judicial elections were borne more of historical contingency than constitutional design. Part II then assesses the recent history of elections to the Ohio Supreme Court. It determines that Ohio's judicial elections share two problems with many other states: millions of dollars given to judicial candidates by special interests likely to appear before the court, and candidates' broad freedom of speech to earn the political and financial support of these special …

We Have Met The Special Interests, And We Are They, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology And The Battle For The Federal Courts, Sheldon Goldman

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bork Was The Beginning: Constitutional Moralism And The Politics Of Judicial Selection, Gary L. Mcdowell

Law Faculty Publications

On October 23, 1987, the United States Senate committed what many considered then-and what many still consider today-to be an unforgivable political and constitutional sin. Wielding its power to advise and consent on nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, the upper house voted 58-42 not to confirm Judge Robert H. Bork. The vote, which was the largest margin of defeat in history for a nominee to the Supreme Court, concluded one of the most tumultuous political battles in the history of the republic, a battle that would transform the process of judicial selection for years to come.

Should Ideology Matter In Selecting Federal Judges? Ground Rules For The Debate, Dawn E. Johnsen

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A recurring constitutional controversy of great practical and political importance concerns the criteria Presidents and Senators should use in selecting federal judges. Particularly contentious is the relevance of what sometimes is described as a prospective judge's ideology, or alternatively, judicial philosophy and views on substantive questions of law. This essay seeks to promote principled and productive discussion by proposing five ground rules to govern debate by all participants regarding appropriate judicial selection criteria. Because the continued controversy does not simply reflect principled disagreement on the merits, progress may be encouraged by focusing on deficiencies in current public discourse, including discouraging …

Functional Departmentalism And Nonjudicial Interpretation: Who Determines Constitutional Meaning?, Dawn E. Johnsen

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Published as part of a Duke Law School symposium on Conservative and Progressive Legal Orders, this article considers the appropriate role of the political branches - Congress and the President - in the development of constitutional meaning, including the extent of presidential and congressional authority to act on constitutional views at odds with judicial doctrine. The article discusses deficiencies in strong forms of both judicial supremacy (such as that behind the Rehnquist Court's recent limits on Congress's section 5 authority) and what is described in the academic literature as departmentalism (which emphasizes near-plenary authority for each branch to act on …

Advice, Consent, And Influence, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.