In recent decades the judicial selection process has?
...rocked along pretty much like it did in the preceding decades. (Even though it drives ideologues cray-zee! lol)
What is the Jury Selection Process?
Where you question potential jurors to see which ones you can strike from the final panel. In most courts the judge will "qualify the panel". This means he will talk to all of them and find out for sure that they all qualify to be on the jury. Usually they will have to be able to read and write, able to hear, able to understand English, and qualify to vote in the jurisdiction where they might be on the jury. After that, the lawyers for each side will be allowed to question them, first the plaintiff, then the defendant, about more specific things which might give insight as to whether or not they will be fair for the type of case it issue. Then, after the limit of time for questioning is over the sides will strike the number of jurors allowed in that type of case, it is different for civil, for criminal, and for felony or misdemeanor crimes, and the first 6 or 12 who are left will comprise the jury. In truth, "jury selection" is incorrect, it should be called "jury deselection".
Can you explain the US election process in VERY SIMPLE terms?
Each party selects members of its party to attend its national convention, which will select the party's presidential and vice presidential candidates (as a practical matter, they run as a team at the national level, but at the primary election, it is only the president). The delegates are pledged to vote for a given person at the convention. That selection is usually by election, but in some cases, it is done by caucus or other type of selection. Some states allow you to decided at the last minute in which party's primary election you want to vote; others require declaration in advance. The electoral college are the individuals who vote the electoral votes from each state. These equal the number of senators and congressional Representatives from that state. We do not use the popular vote system so as to protect the interests of smaller states. And since it is in the Constitution, it cannot be easily changed. India is a parliamentary democracy. The US is not a parliamentary system.
Has the process of selecting federal judges become too politicized?
The selection of Judges has always been political. Many kinds of Judges have to actully run for the Office. 2. The Supreme Court is made up of legal scholars. In America, we do not allow hypothetical in the process. 3. the study of dissenting Opinions, from the S.C.O.T.U.S., is a fine place to learn law. Most of the dissents are scary in their predictions!! and in the exception of unanimous rulings, it is the law to explain the opposing Opinions.
Judicial Selection Methods?
Merit selection would be the choice because the other methods are merely popularity contests and say nothing about the persons eligibility, we have an election coming up where one of the candidates for circuit judge is a city attorney, he is a total failure in his position and is not fit to be a judge but the people voting will not know that they will only know which party he represents and most people vote for the party not the individual, appointments are made by peer influence or the good ol boy syndrome so Merit selection is the only viable way to choose.~
Is "due process" a trial by jury or Obama and a couple of his friends sitting in a smoke filled room?
It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America. In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies "due process" as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, "a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process.'" That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner. It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason. I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Here is the video of Holder speaking at Northwestren University http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6BpMsGru8