Decision Making

As a judge with a reputable name in the US to warrant consideration as a future candidate into the Supreme Court, decision-making procedures are clearly defined by the constitution as well as by court precedents on similar decisions. In line with the premise that constitution is the supreme law and any other law is rendered invalid to the extent of its inconsistence with the constitution, the work of a judge is cut out. For judicial rulings sought by the public where they are not clearly spelt out in the constitution, a judge is free to make rulings setting precedents that may not bind the courts. In view of the flexibility of a judge to rely on judicial precedents, it follows that the freedom to make reliance on past rulings is reserved to the judge. Based on the above facts, it is correct to state that all the rulings delivered as highlighted below pass the test of legal definitions.

In the case of farmers from a different state being barred from selling their wares in Oklahoma, it is against the constitution to exclude someone on a state-related reason. The inconsistence with the constitution renders the law enforced in Oklahoma null and void. In the second case, Oklahoma and Texas are inconsistent with the constitution since enforcement of the order that they are requesting does not serve the best interests of the public as protected by the constitution and the Statute assented to by the president. In the case of Julie Abrams, seeking to compel the Utah state to allow her to operate by circumventing around the laid out state laws is inconsistent with state laws. The election date case in Colorado is consistent with the constitution as it complies with the provisions of the constitution. In the case of Texas having a commemorative coin against the provision of the constitution regarding legal tender, it is inconsistent with the law therefore void to the extent of that inconsistence.

In view of the basic compliance with the constitutional provisions, all the rulings were correct. There were no major contestations on the application of contentious judicial interpretation such as in judicial precedents. Where the constitution is expressly clear on the position of a legal impasse, there are no discussions within the circumstances of the presenting legal challenge other than to implement the constitutional provisions. Apparently, I achieved the goal of a judicial officer under the oath to protect the constitution of the US. To this end, public opinion and ratings leading to proposals as a federal judge does not have an impact on the independence of my judgment. This would affect my duty to discharge my judgment as impartially as possible and without bias originating from conflict of interest.

I have learnt that the decision making process in certain independent positions may face obstacles such as conflict of interest. However, following the laid out procedures is always important in upholding professional values and protecting and national interests. In certain instances, independent judgment may call for extra strength of mind and character by rising above conflicting positions. Understanding the rules and guidelines for a specific job is important in the delivery of expected input, which calls for deliberation on all the available options and choosing for the most appropriate one. As an illustration, it would be embarrassing for a judge of a junior court to continuously make decisions that are contested in an appellate court and having all decisions reversed. This can be avoided by making accurate estimation that can be adopted by appellate court judges.