Supreme Court Justice 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.

The purpose of the Constitution is to assure the people a free and democratic society. So far as the American Constitution is concerned, there can be little real doubt that the courts were intended from the beginning to have the power they have exercised. The power and duty of the Supreme Court to declare statutes or executive action unconstitutional in appropriate cases is part of the Constitution and is an integral part of the process of American government. “In Mr. Justice Jackson's phrase, ‘One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections’." "Judicial review is increasingly essential if we have an increasingly powerful executive. It is an irritant to the executive but it is a very important, fundamental control on the executive. And the fact that members of the executive know they are subject to judicial review helps ensure that they carry out their job

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

35 of 53 Senate Republicans have vowed not to appoint anyone the President picks. This has become a very heated topic of why should the Senate be allowed to stop the President from nominating a new Justice. The Senate wants to allow whoever the new President will be next year to choose who the Justice will be. Some feel that the Senate does not want Obama to choose in fear that it will be a Democratic judge. This would shift the power in the Supreme Court from one that is controlled by the Republicans to one that is controlled by the Democrats. Whoever the President chooses will have an extreme impact for the US Supreme court for several generations to

The Senate should consider every Federal Judge that is nominated by the president.  After the president takes the time to consider and nominate a possible judge, the Senate should show respect by considering the president and his decisions.  This keeps a good working relationship between the Senate and the president.  The Constitution says the president needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint a Federal Judge.  The Senate did not respond to President Obama’s nomination of a federal judge, so the nomination expired.  When President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch and Senate did give advice and consent.

     Lastly the media also has a large role in the appointments. They media can often be viewed as a popularity guide. Since it is a very powerful entity, the president does not wish to accumulate bad press and therefore could be found be very choosing the appointment that would be in his best favor. Newspapers (the NY Times) and TV stations (CNN) as well as radio broadcaster (such as Imus) have huge audiences. If they feel that a president made a bad selection they let people know about and what say can have a large impact on how the president is viewed. The president would want to avoid this at all

The Supreme Court is the final judge of cases and interprets the constitution but it remains limited in power due to checks by the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court has eight Associate Justices and one Chief Justice. Associate Justices, as well as the Chief Justice, hear cases, fewer than 100, and rule decisions on them. The Chief Justice is the presiding judge in the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia was a conservative meaning he had traditional values and disliked change. President- elect, Donald Trump, is a republican and is likely to replace Antonin Scalia with someone who has likeminded political views to avoid gridlock when he becomes president. Someone who is a president-elect means that they have been elected as president but have not taken office yet. Gridlock occurs in government when people are unable to function due to conflicting views and opinions on political issues. It is important to consider many factors when nominating an individual to serve on the Supreme Court, including their age, justices serve for life. Donald Trump has released a list containing potential individuals to replace Scalia’s empty Associate Justice seat, however, Ted Cruz is not on that list. Trump’s list is made up of many federal judges and state supreme court justices. When Donald Trump becomes president and is able to nominate an individual, the nomination must be confirmed by the Senate,

The President is given the power to veto or restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this system the role of the Supreme Court has not yet been defined. Therefore it fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the checks and balances. Making the principle of judicial review. No other was unconstitutional until the Dred Scott case back in 1857. The Supreme Court invalidated the Federal and the state laws to the Constitution was never seriously challenged. Woodrow Wilson said “That the constitution of the United States was not made to fit like a strait jacket it is elasticity lies it is chief

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

First of all, the president nominates a person who he thinks will fulfill the position well. Once the president has selected one person, the president will announce his decision to the Senate. The nominee will submit personal papers and background

The Supreme Court has presided over cases that have changed the history of the United States? The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, and it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. The generalizations I would make about the backgrounds of the Justices, letting the American people decide this question is the reasonable approach that how long they could sit in office, and how they get appointed into office. We the people should be able to vote who hold the seats in the Supreme Courts and how long, just like we vote for the president on United States and any electoral office. They shouldn’t be allowed to serve as long as they like. We all know that once they are appointed, the Constitution states that the United States Senate

Supreme Court justices are elected through a political process; they have their own personal view, which would affect their decision-making. This is why some scholars assert that the justices; political preferences play a critical role in their decisions in many cases. For example, the justices appointed by conservative presidents tend to have conservative views, while those appointed by liberal presidents have the opposite view.

The President of the United States has the authority and power to appoint Justices for the Supreme Court with the help of the Senate. Within the United States Supreme Court there are also Officer positions. The Officer positions are as follows: Counselor to the Chief Justice, Clerk, Librarian, Marshal, Reporter of Decisions, Court Counsel,

Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests judicial power in “one supreme Court”. With incredible adaptability, the Constitution has stood the test of time. Largely due to the limited specificity as to the application of its words, the Constitution has allowed the character of the Court to be historically defined by the individuals who have held the position of “Chief Justice of the United States”. The ideology and individual Constitutional interpretation of each Chief Justice has changed both the influential power and message of the Court. Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and John G. Roberts, Jr. have all successfully been appointed to the Court as Chief Justices. And although the Constitutionally proscribed process of

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