In your initial response, compare and contrast the role and function of the federal court system ...

United States has two parallel court systems which are federal and state courts. Federal courts comprises of the judiciary branch of federal government organized under the United States constitution and laws of the federal government. United States district courts, United States courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United State are all under federal court. Unlike State courts, federal courts have a limited jurisdiction in that they handle cases authorized by U.S Constitution or federal statutes. Federal courts handle cases such bankruptcy, habeas corpus issues, admiralty law, dispute between two or more states among others. Federal courts are selected by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of Senate to serve for life so long they maintain office ethics (Michael 2009). On the other hand, State courts are established by the Constitution and laws of each state to adjudicate controversies concerning state laws that touches the daily lives of citizens in a greater weight than the federal laws. Such cases include criminal cases, family conflicts, contract cases, juvenile matters among others.  State legislators can therefore freely create and enforce any law, regulations and rules so long they don’t compromise the federal constitution or the state own constitution. State court judges are selected through elections, appointment for a given number of years or for life and also through the combinations of these methods (US Legal 2004).   
   
Administration operations of federal courts depend on individual court where the chief judge oversees the daily affairs of court administration. However, important decisions are made by all judges of the court who work together in an individual court. The administrations of the court are entrusted to clerks who are hired by the judges. State courts have the Office of States Courts Administrator (OSCA) that is responsible for providing administrative, business and technology support services to the courts. This office helps to administrate functions of the courts which may include case processing. Debt collection and judgment enforcement, reporting criminal history, observe crime victim’s rights, facilitate juvenile services and family preservations among other functions. In both federal and state courts, cases are similarly handled whereby they first go through administrative hearing. This process is different with the courtroom trials in that it determines whether the case will go through court hearing. This is achieved by establishing facts of the dispute and applies the appropriate law to the fact. Both court systems are effective in their own ways since they handle different case in regard to constitution  (US Legal 2004).
 
References

US Legal (2004). State Courts: Retrieved From: http://system.uslegal.com/state-courts/ on 6th May 2016.

US Legal (2004). Federal Courts: Retrieved from: http://system.uslegal.com/federal-courts/ on 6th May 2016.       

Michael L. Wells (2009). A Litigation Oriented Approach to Teaching Federal courts.

One court system is not more effective because of the document called the United States Constitution. Back when the Framers drafted the Constitution, the federal government was supposed to be a limited government, meaning that the states have the vast majority of powers and it was supposed to be decentralized. And Article III of the Constitution specifically limits the federal court to try only cases that arises under the federal law or when there is a diversity jurisdiction. The federal courts may not hear cases may not hear any other types of cases because of jurisdictional issues. Thus, the states had their own court which is then used for adjudication of the persons within their boundaries. For the federal courts to adjudicate that would violate the Constitution which we must uphold as the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

On a policy matter, one court system would be incredibly ineffective and inefficient. First, it would create bias to one of the parties over another if the parties are from different states. If the Pennsylvania plaintiff is suing a Maryland defendant in Pennsylvania's single court system and there is a jury, the jury members will likely highly favor the Pennsylvania plaintiff. But if the case was tried in Maryland, then the jury would favor the Maryland party. But more importantly, the question as to where the plaintiff can sue will arise and the bias may be inferred from any case if there was a single court system. The federal court was to limit bias as the jury is assumable based on the federal rules rather than state law.

Second, the single court system may further exaggerate in congesting the court system. The courts are inundated as it is in our current system, but to add more cases in a single system can significantly affect the judges. Sure, we can simply add more judges but the issue will rise on the appellate level. The appellate level sets precedents to the rest of the courts within that circuit. If more judges are at the appellate level, inconsistent and disagreeing opinions may arise within that jurisdiction which may affect the law in that jurisdiction.

Lastly, the states should be left with the state court due to state sovereignty. As stated above, we are bound by the Constitution. Single court system will likely sever the purpose of the Constitution of state sovereignty from being able to govern within themselves. To not be able to do can be a great disservice to the states and to the Constitution.