Supreme Court Justice Argumentative Essay

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

In Ohio, "nonpartisan" elections vote justices into office. However, Preceeding these elections are partisan primaries, and each justice must campaign. If the justice wins the election, the justice will want to be re-elected as well. If they want their party to vote for them, they have no choice but to side with the party on issues, instead of interpreting the constitution as it is written. For these reasons, the Missouri Plan should be implemented in Ohio to prevent justices from acting as activists, and to keep justices from excessive partisan influence.

Abstract — Religious influence on judiciary, especially when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, is a complicated issue, and it has been controversial in U.S.. Talking about judgement for the influence, it’s not all-inclusive by only dividing them into liberals and conservatives, instead, a comprehensive approach is to focus on specific cases.

Today, Supreme Court Nominee’s, Neil Gorsuch, Confirmation hearing came near conclusion on a very confrontational note with the Senate’s Principal Democrat threatening to filibuster. This would complicate the way the senate “conducts its business”. The Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch only have a 52-majority instead of the 60-majority that is necessary. However, they say he will be confirmed anyway, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s decision to filibuster was not unexpected but it will increase tension in the senate. “If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said. Although the democrats do not have the votes to block this motion, his filibuster will publicize the resistance in the Congress.

If the Supreme Court Justices were subjected to term limits there confirmation hearings would be not as brutal. The Senate would know the appointee

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

President Obama publicly disagreed with the decision but could not change it. The President decides on nominations who are then put under scrutiny while he receives the ‘advise and consent’ of the Senate judiciary committee. There is therefore a small democratic link however it is very weak. Once a Justice is appointed they cannot be removed and are independent of the other political bodies this can be evidenced by Eisenhower’s appointments, a Republican conservative who appointed 2 liberal justices, something he regretted so much so that when asked if there were any regrets after his time in office he replied “I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court”. As stated before the judiciary is independent and once Supreme Justices are appointed they cannot be fired or dismissed this leaves a huge deficit of accountability, a key factor of democracy.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

During the 1930’s, the community became more and more displeased with the growing role of politics in judicial selection and judicial decision-making. Judges were inundated by outside pressures due to the political features of the election process, and dockets were overcrowded due to time the judges spent campaigning. In November 1940, voters amended the Missouri constitution by adopting the Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan. This plan was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. The acceptance of the plan by initiative referendum resulted from a public repercussion against the widespread abuses of the judicial system by the political machine in Kansas City and by the political control exhibited by ward bosses in St.

     A very recent example of the politics involved in Supreme Court appointments was the 2001 election. It was assumed that the next president would probably be making three new appointment to the Supreme Court. Because of this fact, the president could use this

Furthermore, in case a Supreme Court nominee is not a good fit for the job at least we know that justice will not be there for too many years but for a set time

One of the problems that arise with the Supreme Court term system is that when there is a sudden death it sends everything into frenzy. Since the term for Supreme Court Justices spans a lifetime, sudden and unexpected death gives the United States an empty position or spot to be filled immediately. This could all be solved if the Constitution was amended to reelect or select new Supreme Court Justices after a certain amount of time. The United States Constitution says that, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior”. Good behaviour is said to mean tenure for the rest of their lives. There is often a debate on whether or not this should be the case.

So our government is made up of the Branches, the names of those branches are Legislative,Executive, and finally the Judicial. Legislative is the branch of group that makes the laws. If they see a law needed in the country that would help then they will write the law and pass it onto the Executive. The Executive branch passes the laws if they think it is needed. So if both the Legislative and Executive agree on the law then it will be passed on from the Executive to the Judicial. Finally we have the Judicial who then looks over the law and see if the law is constitutional or unconstitutional. These 3 branches of government make it so on branch doesn’t overrule another branch. It’s all a balance when it comes to power because it just like rock paper scissors. If the Legislative is rock and they want to pass a law but the Executive who is paper doesn't think the law is okay, the law goes back to the Legislative. Then if the Executive who is once again paper passes a law but the

Re-read Act 1 from page 34 (Carol: What do you think?) to the end of page 41. Discuss how Mamet presents the significance and the effects of misunderstanding in this extract and at least one other point in the play.

The public should be the ones to elect Supreme Court justices instead of the President and Senate. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President, who represents the public, but the justices don't represent the public. If we elected them, they would represent the public more. Judicial activism is when a justice makes a decision in the court based on the law instead of their personal view or political consideration, but if they are elected by the public it will support the public