Judges Notes

Judges with lifetime appointments may regain judgment due to the security of their position, allowing them to make decisions based on the Constitution.
The oldest Supreme Court Justice is Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1991 or 1992.
Judicial selection involves financial ramifications, with big donors influencing the system, especially in Texas.
Judges are appointed to fill open positions and then elected/reelected. Supreme and appellate court judges are listed on ballots.
Judicial positions now tend to be party-affiliated, lacking lifetime appointments, making them subject to political action committees and financial donors.
A family law judge in Tarrant County lost his position due to decisions on grandparent and homeschooling rights that angered a political action committee, despite 25 years of experience.
Different methods of judicial selection exist, each with pros and cons.

Organizations like the American Bar Association and the Texas Bar Association conduct surveys on judges.
State judicial ratings include good/bad judges or approval ratings, while federal ratings assess competency (highly competent, competent, not competent).
Attorneys can participate in polls to evaluate judges' performance and adequacy.
Aspirational attributes for potential judges include age, health, impartiality, integrity, and judicial temperament.
Judicial temperament refers to whether a judge is nice or harsh.
Other subskills include industry (hard work), professional skills, community contacts, and social awareness.
The importance of social awareness is questioned, as judges should primarily make decisions based on the law.
Judges, like congresspeople, have residency requirements, such as living in the county for district judges for a certain number of years (possibly two).
Additional attributes: collegiality (related to temperament), writing ability, decisiveness, and speaking ability.
Federal judges often have staff to assist with writing.

In Texas, judicial positions are elected; at the federal level, they're political appointments.
Public financing for judicial elections has been proposed to address the influence of money, but it's unlikely to happen given budget constraints.
Judges who can spend more tend to blanket the airwaves with their views.
Different judicial selection methods exist philosophically.
Some states appoint former legislators to judicial positions, which is criticized due to their lack of judicial experience.
Judge Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice, Harvard 1875) said, "sunshine is the best disinfectant," referring to the importance of scrutinizing judicial records.
Apathy towards judges is decreasing as people see the impact judges can have.
When a judge leaves office midterm, an interim judge may be appointed, but it's challenging to unseat them due to a lack of knowledge among voters.
Judges generally dislike the political aspects of running for office.

Diversity in the judiciary increased under Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Filling judicial positions is tough, with many open federal positions (677 federal judges, with 50-60 or more vacancies).

Besides federal district, appellate, and Supreme Court judges, there are magistrate judges who handle minor offenses, issue search warrants, and review bail.
Magistrate judges are not Article III judges and have appointments of four or eight years.
There is no established nationwide judicial training, though Texas has some training to add uniformity.
Historically, a law degree wasn't always required, especially in JP courts, but it's now generally expected.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct provides an avenue for complaints in Texas, leading to admonishment, suspension, reprimand, removal, or forced retirement.
At the federal level, judicial misconduct is addressed through impeachment.
Sentencing uniformity has shifted, giving judges more discretion.
There was a case involving a judge accepting bribes from a builder of juvenile detention centers.

Most judges respect the judiciary and conduct themselves ethically, viewing their position as a privilege.
However, biases can exist in court; planning around such biases is sometimes necessary.
Errors during a trial can be harmless, harmful, or reversible.
Not all errors are detected, not all guilty verdicts are appealed, and not all appeals are heard, leading to potential injustices.
Skills of a 20th-century judge include using technology and managing dockets efficiently.

Legal factors in sentencing include prior record, seriousness of the offense, and age, which may influence the type of sentence (e.g., probation vs. longer imprisonment).
Acceptance of responsibility is also a factor; a defendant's lack of remorse can increase the sentence.
Extra-legal factors, such as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and attitude, can also influence sentencing.
Few judges are removed from office despite misconduct complaints (e.g., only 48 federal judges removed out of 12,000 complaints in a 10-year period).
Recall elections are rare but possible, as seen with the San Francisco District Attorney.
The integrity of the selection process is crucial for maintaining an ethical judiciary.

Supreme Court rulings may have created loopholes for bribery through the concept of gratuity.
Judicial misconduct seems to be more lax.

Should state and federal level be spending so much money on extremely intricate appeal cases that revolve around illegal activity? Is it worth it?