Supreme Court Justice System

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 United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

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

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).

While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.

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

     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

Judges of the Supreme Court. " On February 12, 2016 Judge Antonin Scalia passed away causing a vacancy in the Supreme Court, Traditionally, the president will offer a candidate to the senate and the senate must vote to accept for that individual to be inducted into the court. However, when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, most of the GOP senate declined to consider him because this entry would turn the court away from the conservative ideological balance for many years until another vacancy. The senate instead wanted to nominate a Republican candidate, but the constitution states that only the president could nominate and the senate could only vote to affirm or

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

This procedure is part of the checks and balances process, however, the president's effectiveness can be challenged when this is done. This is called filibustering and recently is becoming an issue in American government. During the Obama Administration, republicans have used the filibuster to block nominations sought by Obama, as well as certain acts of legislation. Obama's appointments were not able to pass through the Senate due to his party being in the minority, leading to gridlock because legislation cannot be passed. This hinders the effectiveness of government. President Obama had to then appeal to the Republican party in order to get then to stop Filibustering his judicial nominees. To accomplish this, Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened to change the nomination procedure if Judicial appointments didn’t start passing through the Senate (To what extent…

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

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.”

There is a proverb that says, “Don’t fix what isn’t broke.” This statement is very likely as true as it is old. But what happens when something is dysfunctional? The ‘something’ in question is the coveted seat of the Supreme Court Justice, which many should know is not a position that is obtained from the amazingly widespread routine of elections. Not to let out any spoilers if you were not aware, the President is the nominator of Justices to these associate positions and the Senate is the deciding group with a majority vote. I agree with the practice, currently instated because of our Constitution, but can see how some people worry over its effectiveness. There has been one case where a standing Supreme Court Justice has been impeached.