The justice system within the United States is focused on the development of a court system that is governed by a series of judges. Judges serve at either the local, state, or national level in a variety of capacities, and to varying extents. The highest court of a state is the Supreme Court, while the same title is given to the highest court in operation in the country. As judges at this level are not permitted by rules of etiquette to engage in political activities, it is not generally known which party each belongs to.
Currently, California has seven sitting Supreme Court judges. Their names are:
Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye
Kathryn Wedegar
Ming W.Chin
Carol A. Cornigan
Goodwing H. Liu
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar
Leondra Kruger
At the same time, with the recent passing on of the judges on the United States Supreme Court, there are eight current judges serving the highest court of the land. Their names are:
Clarence Thomas
John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Sonia Sotomayor
Stephen G. Breyer
Samuel Alito, Jr.
Elena Kagan
Judges throughout America have the task of determining issues of law and equity, particularly in regards to issues involving the Constitution. This goes for the local, state, and national levels respectively. According to Section 2 of Article II, The legal force might stretch out to all cases, in law and value, emerging under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and bargains made, or which should be made, under their power;- - to all cases influencing envoys, other open clergymen and delegates;- - to all instances of admiral's office and sea purview;- - to debates to which the United States might be a gathering;- - to contentions between two or more states;- - between a state and natives of another state;- - between nationals of various states;- - between residents of the same state guaranteeing lands under gifts of various states, and between a state, or the nationals thereof, and remote states, residents or subjects (Collins 253).
In all cases influencing diplomats, other open pastors and representatives, and those in which a state might be gathering, the Supreme Court should have unique locale. In the various cases before said, the Supreme Court might have re-appraising locale, both as to law and truth, with such special cases, and under such regulations as the Congress should make (Hume 308).
The trial of all violations, aside from in instances of arraignment, might be by jury; and such trial should be held in the state where the said wrongdoings should have been submitted; however when not conferred inside of any state, the trial should be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have coordinated.
Injustice against the United States should comprise just in demanding war against them, or in holding fast to their adversaries, giving them help and solace. No individual might be sentenced treachery unless on the affirmation of two observers to the same unmistakable act, or on admission in open court (Scarduzio 292).
The Congress might have energy to announce the discipline of treachery, however no attainder of injustice should work defilement of blood, or relinquishment aside from amid the life of the individual kept.
Works Cited
Collins, Kristin A. “A Considerable Surgical Operation": Article Iii, Equity, and Judge-made Law in the Federal Courts." Duke law journal 60.2 (2010): 249-343. Web.
Hume, Robert J. "Strategic-Instrument Theory and the use of Non-Authoritative Sources by Federal Judges: Explaining References to Law Review Articles." The Justice System Journal 31.3 (2010): 291-315. Web.
Scarduzio, Jennifer A. "Maintaining Order through Deviance? the Emotional Deviance, Power, and Professional Work of Municipal Court Judges." Management Communication Quarterly 25.2 (2011): 283-310. Web.
