SOC205 - WEEK 3 - DISCUSSION 2

SOCIETY, LAW AND GOVERNMENT

"Federal Judge Selection / Removal Criteria"

Discuss the selection process for a federal judge nominee, including the background checks, senatorial courtesy, the confirmation process, and the assumption of office. Specify which influences you believe are the most persuasive in the final selection of a judge. Provide a rationale for your response.

The selection process for a federal judge nominee begins with nominations by the president after due consultation with the White House staff, the attorney general’s office, certain senators and other politicos. Also, the FBI plays a significant part by performing routine security checks. The next step in consideration of the nominee involves announcement to the public, various interest groups that believe they have a stake in the appointment may lobby for or against the candidate. Further the candidate’s qualification will be evaluated by a committee of the American Bar Association and after this step the candidate’s name is then submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee which conducts an investigation of the nominee’s fitness for the post. If the committee’s vote reflects favorably on the candidate the nomination is sent to the floor of the Senate where it is either approved or rejected by a simple majority vote.

The influences that I believe are the most persuasive in the final selection of a judge would be the overall security checks by the FBI and the candidate’s qualification levels and mental fitness and acuity for the post. These three are very effective in equating the said ability to uphold the integrity and honor of the post.

Judge John Doe, a judge in your state, has recently had charges of ethical misconduct brought against him. From the e-Activity, analyze three (3) steps that a judicial review board in your state would likely take, based on the current judge removal process for your state. Provide a rationale for your response.

One of the aspects that affect the role of a judge is the deviation from expected “during good Behavior” which is in all simplicity the compliance and good conduct demanded and expected by judges. Any conflictive behavior is readily challenged by the utilizing of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that would be inclusive of the right to make all necessary and appropriate orders or steps to ensure the effective and expeditious administration of rights of justice within its circuit and secondly to establish a statutory complaint procedure against judges who act outside the norm of socialization of judges.

Based upon this the chief judge in my state (Federal Court) has the right to first examine and determine the effective rights to challenge deflective behavior and render his decision and determination by appointing an investigative committee consisting of himself or herself and an equal number of trial judges. The next step in the process or inquiry is to determine if the judge should be exonerated, if an Article 3 judge this said judge may be subjected to private or public reprimand or censure, certification of disability, request for voluntary resignation, or prohibition against further case assignments. However, removal of an Article 3 judge is not permitted but impeachment is. Further if the council determines the conduct “might constitute” grounds for impeachment it will notify the Judiciary Conference which in turns may transmit the case to the House of Representatives for consideration.

If the matter pertains to a judge who seats in a state court, the complainant has a right to issue or make complaint of misconduct to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission to subsequently be heard, measured and then summarily judged with approximation of said misconduct by the said master and either issue discipline or valuation of case to the Michigan Supreme Court to determine the right of matter and appropriate discipline. For example, the case of Judge Lisa Gorcyca accusal of misconduct and the case of Judge Dennis N. Power who retired due to charges, assertions of misconduct which became a “distraction” and caused inability to fulfill his duty.

In the matter of Judge John Doe, who seats in a state court and has recently had charges brought against him for ethical misconduct the judicial review would effectively determine the matter as clarity and effectively and subsequently move steadfast to remove the judge by submitting the matter to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission and then remand the case upward to the Michigan ‘Supreme Court to remove the judge from his position and seat on any court and steadfast refuse his right to apply to seat in any court in Michigan.

Thank you.

Felicia McCaw

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2016/07/01/judge-lisa-gorcyca-guilty-misconduct-child-custody-case/86606918/

http://milawyersweekly.com/news/2014/08/21/novi-judge-resigns-on-heels-of-misconduct-hearing/

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/rules/Documents/Michigan%20Code%20Of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf


SOCIETY, LAW AND GOVERNMENT
WEEK 3 - DISCUSSION 2
RESPONSE TO CO-STUDENT

I agree the level of question is always there. Fairness is not always a factor in forgiveness but background checks are admirable but not always a guarantee of the person. Credibility, honesty, integrity is that person's motto as well as that person's backbone.

A judge has to be no compromise and true to their art. As with all I appreciate detailed organization and procedure.

Thank you.

Felicia