Assignment 1
The district judges are court officials appointed by the President of the United States of America and later on confirmed by the senate, in accordance to the Appointments Clause in the constitution, specifically Article 2. These judges oversee the disputes within a specified jurisdiction. These judges are tasked with the duty of hearing and settling civil and criminal matters within the district or jurisdiction. The circuit courts serve as a link between the district courts and the supreme court of the United States of America, which is the highest court in the land. The circuits’ courts are tasked with the appellate function to hear original appeals of all matters that have been resolved by the junior court which is the district court. The Supreme Court is the highest court with the duty to settle presidential petitions and all matters of the constitutional approach.
If I were a president, I would settle for the merit and pure talent of a person to be nominated rather than consider narrow considerations and diversities such as race, gender and religion. I believe that the most important quality would be the ability of a person to be nominated to have an independent opinion and be incorruptible. All the other diversities such as race, greed and religion are subordinate. The judges if the lower courts should have an understanding of the regions and courts where they are posted. For the lower courts, the judges must exhibit the characters that would show that they understand the dynamics and the aspects of matters within the respective regions that the judges could be acting in. Conclusively, the supreme judges must be highly opinionated and incorruptible while the circuit or district judges should understand the dynamics of the regions in which they work.
Assignment 2
I believe that an election is better than appointment because, the allegiance and the loyalty of an elected judge are spread to several people who voted for that judge. Unlike in the appointment process where loyalty of the judge could lie with the appointing authority, mainly the president. Therefore, this would restrict or compromise the opinion and independence of the judge and thus make the judge unable to offer an independent opinion. Thus, election would imply that the judge does not have to show loyalty to the president or the appointing authority. Judges should not be allowed to accept contributions because in effect, they would feel that they owe the people who contributed to their campaign. This means that the judge would be indebted to the contributors and in the event that any of them is in the court process, the judge would be in a difficult position to offer an independent opinion.
Federal appointments make public opinion and demand less useful because the president would rely on the counsel and guidance of the council. This means that it is easy for the president to appoint a person whom he or she likes regardless of the public opinion. This is to say that the public is not given the chance to debate and give their input on whether the judge ought to be appointed as a federal judge or not. If the president and his or her friends settle on a candidate even if it a reward for favour; the public has no say, because the president’s appointment is final.
