Law Commons^™

Electing Our Judges And Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court's "Triple Whammy", Martin H. Belsky

ConLawNOW

In this article, Martin Belsky makes the case for judicial selection based on merit, as opposed to popular elections. Belsky cites Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company and the recent defeat of three Iowa supreme court justices because of their opinion in a controversial gay marriage case for the proposition that judicial elections can, and do, yield unjust results. Belsky asserts the need for judicial independence, but concludes that this goal is not achievable through elections because of the “triple whammy” of constitutional limitations: (1) the First Amendment protection of the right of judges and judicial candidates to give specific, …

Praise Defenders, Not Just Prosecutors, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico And The Ideal Of Judicial Independence, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

Not available.

Why The Judicial Elections Debate Matters Less Than You Think: Retention As The Cornerstone Of Independence And Accountability, Layne S. Keele

Akron Law Review

This Article attempts to reframe the age-old judicial election arguments into a discussion about the importance of the retention decision, in order to draw out the areas of true disagreement in the judicial independence/judicial accountability debate. I argue that the core difficulties in balancing the desire for judicial independence with the desire for judicial accountability stem primarily from the judicial retention decision, regardless of whether retention is obtained by some form of reelection or through a form of reappointment. I then propose a two-term system for putting judges on state high courts, in which (1) high court judges sit for …

Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …