Supreme Court Issues

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.

Americans elect two-thirds of the government, both the president and congress. As for the supreme court justices, the president nominates someone and congress reviews them. This is how the system should stay, for the American public would not choose the best people if justices had to run and be elected.

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

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

In the State of Texas, we have a rather odd way of selecting which judges will and will not be able to have a job in the State of Texas. The way we select them is the same way that we decide who is going to be the governor of the State of Texas, we elected them. There are many flaws with choosing election as the way of picking who will be judges. Some of the flaws are that there will possibly be a lack of minority chosen, voters tend to know little to none information about the local election let alone the candidates up for judges, and finally people contributing to campaigns. While few people know that this how we elected judges in Texas, but even fewer realize the consequences the will continue to pile up if we do not do something to put an end to this ludicrous way of choosing an influential position of office.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

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.

The Supreme Court is the highest level of the federal court system. It consists of nine justices, including a chief justice and eight associate justices. Very rarely do cases originate on the level of the Supreme Court. The judges and justices that preside over the courts of the United States determine the constitutionality of laws and legislation.

We have come across an uncommon issue which is, congress, specifically senate, is not making any progress in advising or consenting the nominee U.S. Supreme Court Judge chosen by Obama. Through logic, senate’s lack of responsiveness is not okay. Obama should appoint Merrick Garland because the Senate has not even stated doing its job in holding hearings or voting. Further, it has not done its constitutional role of advice and consent. Structurally, the powers of Judge appointments are in the presidents’ section of the Constitution meaning they are shared powers, but more like shared obligations. The awareness of this is seen where FDR threatened to pack the court because that power was delegated to him. The Senate has this obligation, they have not started the process, yet they know they have to, they know they can vote no, but they just want to leave it to the next president. In Humphrey’s we see that Congress has intervention in the inferior offices, but only through statute, meaning that only through statute can congress be involved sometimes. This ties into how through legal matters they do advice and consent. In the prize cases, we see that Lincoln was allowed to take from an industry outside of the war exception, absent of congresses authorization, because they were unsure if there was even a war at the times of civil war. In Goldwater v. carter, the plurality find for carter senate’s role ends at ratification when it comes to ratifying treaties, yet they also find

The President is required to submit a nominee for the supreme court to replace any Justice that has retired or died. However, that is just the first step. The nominee then must be voted on by the members of congress. However right now the Republicans in congress are refusing to even see the President's nominee for the supreme court. They say that it is not up to the current president to choose the next supreme court nominee because he has less than a year left in his term. The congress members that are the same political party as the president are saying that it is congress's constitutional responsibility to at least see the nominee, interview him and then vote on him. Their argument is that it is the congress's constitutional duty to vote on the nominee. They say that they do not have to approve the nominee they just have to vote on the person. The republicans are still refusing to even see the nominee claiming that the president does not have the authority to nominate a new justice and demand that congress

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.

In consideration when making appointments would obviously be the candidates gender, race (to appease members of less represented minorities), religious affiliation (their stance on abortion et. al), possibility of judicial activism or restraint, and partisan affiliation (get the backing of your own interest groups or to gain support from the opposing).

The president can appoint judges and other officials, but the senate must approve of them first.

The judicial branch is one of the most powerful branches in the usa besides the legislative branch but the judicial branch has the ability to have the president confirm if they take or leave the Supreme Court Justices are chosen by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for the rest of their lives, as long as they practice “good behavior.”