Federal Courts. Powers of Federal Judges. District Court Injunction Stayed by Supreme Court Justice in Chambers

1948 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 311
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Court ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
Federal Judges

A Comparative Analysis of State and Federal Judicial Behavior: The Reapportionment Cases

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 788-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward N. Beiser
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial Behavior ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Political Office ◽  
Historical Fact ◽  
Local Pressures ◽  
Federal Judges

The literature discussing the responses of lower court judges to decisions of the United States Supreme Court is limited, and the few comparative analyses of state and federal judicial behavior have tended to be speculative rather than empirical. It has been suggested that a controversial Supreme Court decision is likely to be supported more strongly by federal judges than by state judges, that state courts will probably construe a Supreme Court mandate more narrowly than will federal courts, and that federal courts can be expected to move in a direction hinted at by the Court more aggressively than state courts. Since all federal judges are appointed for life, it is only logical that they should be more independent of local pressures than state judges, many of whom are elected, or appointed for limited periods. The fact that state and federal judges owe their appointments to different levels of the political party hierarchy, and the historical fact that federal judges are less likely to seek future political office than are state judges, suggest a similar conclusion. Finally, the very fact of being a federal judge may produce a sense of identification with the Supreme Court which state judges would not share.

U.S. Supreme Court Brief of Professors of Civil Procedure and Federal Courts as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Sandstrom Simard ◽  
Cassandra Burke Robertson ◽  
Charles W. (Rocky) Rhodes ◽  
Bryan T. Camp ◽  
Paul R. Gugliuzza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Court

Black Federal Judges and Civil Rights in the Age of Obama

2021 ◽  
pp. 201-221
Author(s):  
Shenita Brazelton ◽  
Dianne M. Pinderhughes
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
President Obama ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Judges ◽  
The Impact

We examine the demographics of the federal judiciary and the impact President Obama had on diversifying the federal bench. We discuss the record-breaking number of women and minorities Obama appointed to federal courts at all levels. Considering the historic and current struggles of African Americans in attaining civil rights, we focus our discussion on the appointment of Black federal judges. We highlight the historic firsts for African American appointees and the continuing need for Black federal judges, particularly in the South. We also discuss the inclusionary dilemma in the context of President Obama’s selections for staffing the federal judiciary. We discuss Obama’s decision not to appoint a third African American justice to the Supreme Court, but we examine his record-breaking number of African American appointments to the lower federal courts. Despite these historic appointments, President Obama’s appointment power was not unfettered. In the end, we assess the impact of Obama’s appointees in view of voting rights litigation. Voting rights are particularly pertinent for racial minorities who have been historically denied these rights but have made gains in electing minorities to public office. In the conclusion, we discuss the racial implications of the Trump administration’s attempts to reverse Obama’s judicial legacy.

Judicial Elections and Partisan Endorsement of Judicial Candidates in Minnesota

1941 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm C. Moos
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Good Chance ◽  
District Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Election Law ◽  
Judicial Elections ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Judges

All judicial officers in the state of Minnesota, including the chief justice and six associate justices of the supreme court and fifty judges in the district courts, are required to be nominated and elected without partisan designation. Judicial nominations and elections were made nonpartisan by the election law of 1912. During a quarter of a century, the nonpartisan ballot has given Minnesota the services of an exceptionally well qualified bench, and sentiment is practically unanimous in favor of continuing this method of selecting judges.Once elevated to the bench, a Minnesota judge has a good chance of continuing in that capacity as long as he wishes to serve. Supreme court justices have been regularly reelected; so that their tenure has been, for all practical purposes, the same as that of federal judges. Three of the present members of the supreme court have been elected once, two have been elected twice, one three times, and one four times. With one exception, the supreme court justices since 1912 have retired from office by resignation or death.Of the eighty-four district court judges who have served since 1912, only four have been defeated at the polls when seeking reelection. At the present time, thirty-six of the state's fifty district court judges have been elected two or more times, and twenty-three have been elected three or more times.

ASAS TERBUKA UNTUK UMUM DAN KEHADIRAN FISIK PARA PIHAK DALAM SIDANG DI PENGADILAN NEGERI PASCA PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1 TAHUN 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 237-250
Author(s):  
Bernadette M Waluyo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Basic Principle ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Court Proceedings

The Indonesian Supreme Court, in response to the information era, modernizes the civil procedural rules at the district court level.  This is done by issuing Supreme Court Regulation no. 1 of 2019 re. Administration of Justice at Civil Law Courts and Electronic-Court Proceedings. Undoubtedly, modernization of existing rules on the administration of justice is much needed.  On the other hand, these changes may violate a number of procedural civil law principles.  The author argues, from a civil procedural law perspective, that the above Supreme Court regulation violates the basic principle of transparency of court proceedings and physical attendance at court proceedings. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document