Good example of becoming a judge in the united states essay

What it takes to become a judge in the United States

Becoming a judge in the United States does not occur spontaneously, nor in isolation. Instead, individuals wishing to become judges take a systematic path. Notably, various state courts have set the minimum age and length of practice that an individual takes prior becoming a judge. However, there is the need to comprehend with the fact that the constitution of the United States does not clearly articulate on the specific qualifications for judgeship. While it may seem practical for judges to possess a degree in law, it is of the essence to note that the Constitution does not require judges to possess one. Even so, having a degree in law should perhaps be considered a minimum requirement for judgeship position. Many at times, becoming judge in the United States is determined by the discretion of the senators and the president. This is because the president and the senators are the ones who determine judgeship qualification and recommend particular personnel for judgeship position.
On another note, there are certain basic qualifications that an individual should meet. Precisely, the American Bar Associations Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary has set certain standards to be met by individuals seeking judgeship position. These standards include professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament (Robert et al. 24). In addition, the Committee cogitates an individual’s length of practise whereby judgeship nominees must have practiced for close to twelve years. Apart from practice experience, candidates seeking judgeship positions in the United States should have considerable litigation experience. With regards to integrity as one of the standards to be met by nominees for judgeship positions, the American Bar Associations Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary assesses the nominee’s reputation and overall character in the legal realm. Conversely, competence standards are determined by judgeship nominee’s judgement, knowledge of law, breadth of professional experience, intellectual capacity, and well as analytical, and writing capabilities. In line with judicial judgement, the Committee often assesses matter regarding the nominee’s decisiveness, compassion, courtesy, freedom from bias, patience and open mindedness. Finally, it is of the essence that candidates for judgeship positions are subjected to background checks by the FBI to ascertain whether they have ever committed crime (s).

Selection of Judges

As previously connoted herein, judgeship position in the context of the United States takes a systematic pathway. As such, the selection of judges also occurs in a similar manner, although, variations exist amongst states with regards to the process followed when selecting judges. Evidently, there exist three means that can be utilized to select judges. More importantly, merit selection has often be utilised to select judges. Speaking of merit system, this connotes to the use of judgeship candidates educational qualifications as means of selecting judges. In the use of merit system, potential judges make applications to the state commission in cases where the judge’s position is vacant. The commission administers interviews on the candidates depending on professional accreditation, and the selected candidates are forwarded to the governor. In line with use of merit system, local judges require bachelor’s degree, whereas the minimum requirement for federal judges is a juris doctorate (Robert et al. 39). The second means utilized in selecting judges is through elections. With the use of this methods, local and state judges are elected every two years. Similar to other elections, judgeship elections begin with campaigns by candidates seeking judgeship positions. The only difference is that the candidates vying for judgeship positions does not need to necessarily vie against any other individual.
In addition, appointment by the president occurs as the other way in which judges are selected. With the use of this method, persons who believe to have the requisite expertise and experience submit applications for the judgeship posts in cases where judgeship post (s) are vacant. A nomination commission established by the senate screens applications and select various candidates who are scheduled for interview, whereby suitable nominees are selected. The nominee’s names are the forwarded to the White House, whereby the Justice Department does investigations regarding the nominee’s professional background (Richard 9). Overall, the nominees are subjected to a thorough review by the American Bar Associations Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, which then compiles a report on the same. The president approves the nominations, and submits them to the senate, precisely, Senate Committee on Judiciary, whereby a hearing of the same is set. The senate then votes on the approved nominations to be confirmed.

Role of Judges

A close analysis of judgeship depict a wider array of roles played by individuals in such positions. Above all, judges intercede a number issues that unfold during courtroom trials and hearings. Worth noting is the fact that hearings and trials are made of evidences presented to the court. In line with this, judges play a comprehensive role in assessing the substantiality of the evidence. On a similar note, judges are often tasked with the role of interpreting laws pertaining various crimes (Michael 18). Deductively, judges may be termed as non-partisan decision makers in the quest for justice across different realms. Many at times, legal cases entail tussles between victims and defendants. As such, judges are required to remain impartial and make independent assessment of presented evidences and interpret how the law applies to such evidence.
Judges also play a role of hearing cases, especially civil cases, even in the absence of a jury. This means judges are the one to make final decisions on the credibility of evidence presented by the victims involved in such crimes. In determining whether evidence presented by the witness is credible or not, judges apply existing laws to ascertain the evidence is beyond any reasonable doubts. This assures that justice is accorded to the defendant and victim (s) of crime. In cases where evidence has proofed that the defendant is guilty, judges make a ruling, which dictates the penalty accorded to the defendant.
In the end, does it really matter whom we put in the bench

Work Cited

Michael Ross Fowler. With Justice for All? Prentice-Hall. 1998.
Richard Abel. The Law and Society Reader. New York University, 1995.
Robert A. Carp, Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning. Judicial Process in America, 9th ed. Sage – CQ Press. 2014.