The Departmental Theory & the Establishment of Judicial Review

Wednesday February 22, 2012

     Today we discussed Chapter 4.  It was all about Judicial Review and the textbook had several examples of court cases throughout history to make a point.  Judicial Review is the power that is given to all courts.  This power is to make sure that things are Constitutional, like laws and executive actions.  This is vital to our government because it creates checks and balances!  Judicial Review is the main check is has over the other branches of government because the Judicial branch can tell the Legislative branch that the laws that they are passing are not Constitutional, or the Executive branch that the President (or anyone else) is not acting Constitutional.  This one power can keep many people "in-check" and make sure that everything in each branch of government is equally balanced.
     We spent a good portion of class discussing the difference between state and federal judges.  State judges are elected by the people for a specific term (10 years in Illinois).  While there are elections, more than usual the current judge stays in office (newcomers rarely win).  I was told that it is not like a normal election.  The election is basically "do you want to keep this judge in office or not?"  So it can easily be seen that the person in office usually stays in office.  This is quite similar to federal judges.  Federal judges are appointed by the President and serve for life.  The only way to remove a judge is to try them in court for a crime.  These crimes are really high crimes, not like petty not paying a parking ticket crimes.  Another way for a judge to leave office if for them to quit or retire.  I don't particularly like this idea of a judge serving for life.  I mean, its a good thing so the President does not waste a lot of time appointing people.  The idea of a person staying in one job for their life does not seem fair to me.  Also, if that person has bad judgment or is super right or left wing, they could change the outcome of every case!  We talked about how after certain major events that the judges change their standpoint, but, honestly, how often does that happen?  I think judges should have certain requirements that they must meet.  Then be appointed by the President (or even elected by the people), then given the go-ahead by Congress or other parts of government.  That would make sure that each judge is qualified for their job, but also get their job based on their merit. 
     We also talked about jurisdiction.  This is the area in which you can determine a case.  The Supreme Court of Illinois has jurisdiction over all of Illinois whereas the Federal Supreme Court as jurisdiction over the entire country.  Also, a writ of Mandamus is a judge telling someone to do something.  This could be considered a check and balance, or a judge using their authority and power to get something to happen.  A writ of mandamus was used in Marbury vs. Madison to help bring the case to a close.
     The other topic which was covered in class today was Presentism.  This is a type of historical and moral judgment.  It is often self-congratulatory because we think our generation, ideas, and actions are better than those before us.  So, instead of judging something based on the standards of the time in which an event happened, a person would judge based on the standard of their present time.  The idea of presentism is almost always looked at as a bad thing.  Historians spend years trying to train themselves not to be bias.  Even though I, personally, cannot think of a time or instance when presentism could be considered a good thing, I still believe that presentism is not all bad.  I can't really describe the idea, but I feel quite optomistic about the idea that presentism can be used as a good thing, instead of the bad reputations that it has received in many colleges and historical studies.