Reagan's Argumentative Essay On Trying To Pack The Court

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.

Conclusion: The Supreme court are divided politically and the court is more conservative than in the Warren/Burger era, ( since 1969 when Nixon became president there have been 16 appointments to the court 12 by Republican Presidents and 4 by Democrat Presidents),but while the court has developed a conservative view on election contributions and guns the main precedents of the Warren/ Burger era remain intact because being conservative is not the same as being a judicial

There is an open seat in the supreme court. Since the death of justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, President Barack Obama has attempted to appoint judge Merrick Garland to fill this vacancy. However, the currently Republican U.S. Senate has refused to act on the nomination. This is not the first time the Senate has disagreed with the president's choice of nominee. The Senate confirms just around eighty percent of the president's nominations. There is a strong rationale behind this two-tiered appointment system. Seats in the Supreme Court are extremely important positions to hold; the Supreme Court has the role of interpreting the text of the Constitution and using that interpretation

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.

Beforehand, I had just viewed the Supreme Court has a high up court system that did things the way that they did simply because they were the Supreme Court and could do things their way. However, I was very unaware as to the corruption and how out of control things have become over recent years. While the Supreme Court is a high up court, everything should still be decided with the people’s will as the main factor, unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Having power does not grant one the ability to appear as superior to the Constitution and its original intentions. Of course, the original founders did not have the intention for the Supreme Court to end up with the amount of distorted power that it has today.

Jan Greenburg is a Legal Communicator for the ABC news. In this book she tells explains about nine different interviews she has had with high political leaders. The leaders range from Justices to the white house. This book basically takes the outside and inside view of how the court has changed over time. Court has changed over time with mainly communal problems such as: faith, ethnicity and illegal processes. Jan talks about how some of the court has basically used itself to gain power through these communal problems. This is really useful when it comes down to it, because it lets the reader realize that the court does not always give proper justice. There are numerous conflicts in the Supreme Court. People always want power, and some

According to Source 3, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a legislative initiative to add more Justices to the Supreme court. He did this so the Supreme Court Justices will not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Many of the New deal programs were being ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so in order to fix this conflict he wanted to add more justices that were linnet about what in constitutional. In Source 1 it shows Frank Gannett concerns towards this proposal, Gannett's states that "The fight to protect our Supreme Court from subordination", this means that if FDR's proposal wins than the Supreme Court will have a low position

This may be due to the great significance and power the Supreme Court holds. The level of political activity in the Bork hearings and nomination process was unprecedented and large interest group activity emerged. The role of interest groups in the nomination and conformation of Supreme Court judges has grown considerably during the last fifty years since the Bork nomination. Interest groups are aware of the importance and power the Supreme Court holds. These groups will lobby to ensure an individual with similar ideological views is appointed to the court. Interest groups exist on both the conservative and liberal side of politics. This makes appointing an individual with strong liberal or conservative views difficult, because they will receive extreme scrutiny from an interest group with opposing political views. A moderate for either political viewpoint is easier to get appointed to the court. Interest groups lobby directly to the president, and to congress during the nomination and conformation process. They provide key information, and have major influence on the outcome of a

Ronald Reagan's son says that of all the other 2016 Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump is the least similar his father.

Contrasting Roosevelt’s first term, in his second term as president few legislations was passed with the second part of his new deal. The additional of the Housing Act of 1937 , a reconfigured version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act12 and the Fair Labor Standards Act12 were added to benefit to the working class as it did in his previous term. The inclusion of the Work Progress Administration would again expand the government spending with an addition of 5 billion dollars to construct serval public park. What will be the most controversial issue in Roosevelt’s services as president is the overreaching of the executive power with the proposal of the Judicial Procedure Reform Bill of 1937 , or Court-Packing. The Federal Supreme Court as it stands during the Great Depression

President Ronald Reagan has just ordered for all Libyan assets to be frozen. He wanted to be safe just in case Libya decided to seize the Americans. In the meantime, the U.S. was attempting to persuade the Europeans and other possible connection to Libya to the killing of nineteen individuals, five in which were

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

The Brethren, co-authored by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, is an in-depth documentary of the United States Supreme Court from 1969 to 1975, under the leadership of Warren Burger. The book attempts to present the reader with what "really" goes on in the Supreme Court. It describes the conferences, the personality of justices, and how justice's feel toward each other, items which are generally hidden from the public. This book is comparable to a lengthy newspaper article. Written more as a source of information than of entertainment, The Brethren is the brutal truth, but not boring. The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the overall quality of the work

The United States government consists of three branches, with an important Supreme Court made up of nine justices. Hence, when Antonin Scalia died, it only makes sense that President Obama appoints another judge to fill in the spot. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution elucidates this power by stating “[the president] shall nominate, by and with [a]dvice and [c]onsent of the Senate… [j]udges of the supreme Court.” In the periodical, “Obama Taps Merrick Garland as Supreme Court Nominee,” this clause demonstrates its power in two manners. First, Obama decides to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Second, in the article, the Arkansas Attorney General paraphrases the Constitution and states that the “ Senate has an equal

The combination of the nomination and majority vote is working better than any other position-filling strategies. There is a high legitimacy when the President chooses who he suspects will fulfill the position to the greatest of their ability. This is brought to light by how our President Obama has spent a month seeking for his hopeful successor of former Justice John Paul Stevens, in this case Elena Kagan (Baker Zeleny). President Obama had interviewed other potential nominees, clearly spending substantial time acquainting himself with their qualifications, met or unmet, towards the prestige of the Supreme Court Justice. When the President allots that much time to find a viable successor in the Supreme Court it clarifies how crucial it is to fill the position with dignity. The commonplace lengthy process of searching for the next Justice and the majority vote required by the Senate is too much to ignore. Even if the President was careless enough to haphazardly select a Justice, the Senate consists of 100 members of various parties who could nullify the Presidents nominee by a majority vote against said person. The most prominent backup in the process of admitting a Justice is the multi-partied Senate, and as long as they are not corrupt there will be a lock against easy access to the position of the Supreme Court Justice. Another reason to stay parallel to the U.S. Constitution is the dilemma of public elections and how scarce they are in proportion to the