Should The Senate Be Allowed To Stop The President?

Judge Neil Gorsuch is President Donald Trump's selection to fill the Supreme Court seat that was left open a year ago by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch graduated from Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, was a clerk for two Supreme Court justices and worked for a period of time at the Department of Justice. He attended Harvard Law with former President of the United States Barack Obama. Gorsuch has served on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Colorado since 2006.

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.

There are two major factors that affect the confirmation process of a president’s nominees; one is party affiliation. Party affiliation is very important when the Senate is confirming a nominee, because Senate confirms nominees by a ⅔ vote. This could be very crucial to the president and his or her nominee, because if the majority of the Senate is part of the opposing party, this becomes difficult for the president to get his nominee confirmed. The second political factor is qualification to become a judge or justice. The Senate does not want an unqualified judge who does not know what he or she is doing. It is important to the Senate to approve someone who has experience in the judicial field than someone who has no experience at all. The

The above facts and details of appointments serve as great strengths for Greenburg, but there are also weaknesses she failed to touch on and include in this book. Greenburg fails to consider how the same scare-tactic rhetoric used by democratic and liberal senators nearly every time a conservative justice is nominated as well she only glances and summarizes the events of Thomas’ confirmation hearing and the attempted filibuster of Samuel Alito’s nomination. These accounts would have provided more information and context for the book to give a more well-rounded account of these appointments

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

In a recent event, one of Supreme Court Justices has passed away. Theoretically, the President would have to appoint a new justice and also have that nomination to be confirmed by the Senate. But recently Senate has declined to support Barack Obama approval on the new member of Justice. Now, statistically, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans by fifty four to forty six. This causes the Democrats to lose the majority in the Senate. Due to this Republicans are seeing this as a loophole to stop the nominations of a new Justice nominated in favor of a Democratic President. Instead of Congress members letting go of the rivalry in the two sets of parties, Republicans or known as the Senate has decided that it would be a good idea to leave only 8 Justices in the

This allows the executive branch to determine the makeup of the judiciary branch, and through it exercise power over the legislative branch. Because the men and women appointed to the Supreme Court remain there for life, with no public elections to possibly remove them, a president can affect politics through his choice of appointees for decades after his time in office has ended (Romance, July 29). But this, too, is limited by the Congress as the president’s judicial appointments are subject to the consent of the Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289).

Bringing in new judges will allow for different thought patterns and views on certain problems. In addition, “a different perspective can permit you to more fully understand the arguments that are before you and help you articulate your position in a way that everyone will understand” (Sotomayor, 2016). Furthermore, newer judges would relieve others of the concern that the judges are unfortunately unable to keep up with the current society and their needs. As a result, newer judges will be able to notice the issues that the current society may be needed to be

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.

No one has any idea of what the new supreme court will be like every time they are chosen. Even the presidents and officials who appoint them can only presume what kind of future the new supreme court holds. A good example would be Sonia Sotomayor, the first latino justice chosen by president Barack Obama who chose her because he felt that she had a bright future, but in reality she didn’t really stand out much. She is often compared to the first African American and first female justice, who did in fact break racial and gender barriers but weren’t generally seen as intellectual leaders. A trend in the recent decades displays that presidents typically nominate candidates with high academics, judicial resumes, a history of controversial speeches,

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

     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

It is extremely rare to have an interview with a Supreme Court Justice, unless they are promoting their book, and they avoid political topics at all costs. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg however has been very open on her opposition against Republican nominee Donald Trump. Ginsburg says it's unimaginable what would happen to the country if he is elected. Ginsburg also voiced her disapproval with the Senate's refusal on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. While the other Justices have remained silent on this issue, Ginsburg says that it is the Senate's job to assess the nominee (Merrick B. Garland), and that nowhere in the constitution does it say that the President loses his authority during his final year in office. Ginsburg also commented

It is composed of one Chief Justice and eight Associates Justice members. The power to nominate the Justices is vested by the President of the United States, therefore by making attentive judicial selections he can control the judiciary (Lau 45-6).*The power of the president to name federal judges is absolute—he is not required to consult with any other individual in making his choice. As a matter of custom, presidents have traditionally looked to senators to provide names of judicial candidates for consideration, and some presidents are more willing than others to defer to the advice of aides and advisors. For much of the nation’s history, the Senate routinely confirmed the president’s choices. President Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 changed that tradition forever. Alarmed Democrats grilled Bork in confirmation hearings and ultimately declined to confirm him, setting the stage for a new breed of confirmation hearings where senators try to ascertain not just the nominee’s character but also how he or she will judge certain issues. Judicial nominees, especially to the Supreme Court, are under so much scrutiny now that sometimes even the president’s own party will turn against a nominee. This happened to President George W. Bush when he named his close friend Harriet Miers to fill a vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement.