Supreme Court Packing Scandal

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.

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

I will now examine some of last election year's results. Voter turnout has decreased in the past years. There are two main factors that have been coming up in the past years. First, many citizens say that who is elected in office is not as important as it once was. Secondly, younger Americans are more cynical and disconnected from politics than ever. I think there is too much information out there and another thing that might be the reason this is happening is because candidates insult other candidates with their campaign ads. This confuses the voter like I mentioned before and makes them not want to go out and vote. In the next paragraph I will discuss why I think judges should be decided by partisan vote.

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.

There is currently a chaotic situation brewing within the federal judicial branch of the United States. Due to Congress refusing to submit nominations for federal judges to the executive branch, few overall nominations for the federal judicial vacancies are being submitted to the Senate for confirmation. This leaves senior judges struggling to handle caseloads meant for numerous people and the adjudication period doubling or tripling for those who are bringing cases within the federal court system.

When Associate Justice Antonin Scalia perished in Texas from natural causes, the focus was on the storm of controversy that was sparked by the now vacant space on the highest court in the nation, rather than the great tragedy of an honorable and long-serving government official passing away. While this does paint a sorry picture of our nation's focus on who has the power rather than individual's happiness, the altercation caused by the urgent, important, and pressing question of who should appoint the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and who the next Associate Justice should by is in many ways essential to what our country's main policies become in the next fifty years. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the senate majority leader and thus

The American public often thinks of law making as the job of congress or the president, and often overlooks the importance of the judicial branch (you said citation needed? But I’m not citing anything these are my own words) . However, The Supreme Court is a national policy maker and directly affects the nation’s laws as well as how the constitution is interpreted; therefore, the decisions that the Supreme Court establishes directly affect thousands of Americans’ lives. It is with this fact in mind that I hope to examine and illustrate the importance of public opinion on the highest Court. If most of America supports an idea, does the Court reflect this majority? Should the court have to reflect the nation’s majority? This thesis examines

Political scholar, William Hoffer, accurately describes the Supreme Court to have a strong influence in guiding the United States toward certain political paths. The decisions and rulings established by the Court cause a reaction affecting those within its jurisdiction. Working under the most powerful source of law, the Constitution, the Supreme Court has a heavy influence over the nation’s political fate, but all the power does not reside in their hands. While Hoffer’s opinion of the Court having a strong control over the nation’s political policies hold to be true, there is an established, complex system of checks and balances among the Court, the President, and Congress; so even though each branch holds a portion of power, their decisions may be denied or overruled by mutual agreement within the other branches. Nevertheless, every decision the Court makes has an impact on the nation, and there are several cases that built the foundation of American society and provided a strong foothold for future political establishments and positions that policymakers may base their decisions.

"The Supreme Court is the guardian of its own integrity" (Boston Globe) As Americans, we desire for our Supreme Court Justices to distance themselves from emotional decisions and to not allow politics to influence their decisions. Realistically, when it comes to judicial decision making, the Supreme Court uses three different approaches to making their decisions, while hopefully staying true to their own integrity. The three models used when studying how decisions are made by the Supreme Court are the legal model, the attitudinal model, and the strategic model. Those interpreting the law refer to the Constitution, which provides well-guided direction, but is vague and much of the law making is left to the interpretation of our judges. We entrust that the best legal decisions will be made by our nine Supreme Court justices.

As previously discussed and demonstrated, prior to, and even early on in Roosevelt’s implementation of the New Deal, the Court had demonstrated a highly conservative, and laissez faire outlook. In the early stages of the New Deal era, the Court had invalidated numerous programs, such as the Railroad Retirement Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and Agricultural Adjustment Act. Infuriated, President Roosevelt devised a proposed legislation to “pack the Court”. Under the Court packing plan, Roosevelt would have the opportunity to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court, ultimately upsetting the balance of the Court and manipulating it to rule more in his favor. Although this legislation was not passed, the Court did shift its

The role of politics in the Supreme Court became clear when the Senate rejected President Reagan’s Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. Many people consider Bork one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees ever, but his extremely conservative views on civil rights, abortion, and gender equality, among other issues, led to his 58-42 defeat in the Senate. The politicization of the Supreme Court is a widely-debated topic that often begins with the Justices themselves and the role of ideology. Some scholars argue that politics’ role in Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees overshadows a nominee’s judicial philosophy and qualifications. A particular policy stance can impact the way the Senate and the

Justice Scalia has been recognized as the funniest justice in the Court, which in part has led him to become one of the most talked about Justices. Justice Scalia receives a great deal of attention from both his supporters and his opponents; Nino has attracted most of the public’s attention with his controversial opinions, mostly those in which he dissents on cases related to moral issues, such as abortion. It is no secret that Justice Scalia holds a conservative opinion on the vast majority of the issues that the Court hears; The Supreme Court Compendium reports that between the years of 1937 and 2006, Justice Scalia is the only one who has received a -1 value , in terms of the conservativeness of his opinions. Contrary to what one would expect, one of Justice Antonin Scalia’s closest friends and colleagues is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who tends to vote liberal – they are friends, but they often vote differently. A recent study released by the New York Times reports that Justice Scalia votes with Justice Clarence Thomas 91% of the time, with Justice John Roberts 90% of the time, and Justice Samuel Alito 86% of the time. This is no surprise, being

The two articles being critiqued are; “Judicial Selection: Part I. Reform: Are Campaign Contributions Compromising the Independent Judiciary?” and “Reform from Within: Positive Solutions for Elected Judiciaries.” Both articles by their titles give away exactly what the writers intend to speak about. The articles in question are opposed to the current method of selection for Judiciaries, that being an election based process in most states. They fear that money, political standpoints, and flashy advertising are getting in the way of Justice being appropriately and justly being administered. They believe that a merit based selection should be utilized in making an individual a Judiciary. The questions these articles aim to answer

In 1968, Hensley initiated a more comprehensive survey on how national bias may affect the decision-making of the ICJ members. With the data covering ICJ’s decisions on 54 claims in contentious cases between 1946 and 1964, he analyzed a total number of 638 votes. In this research, Hensley found that the votes of regular judges from party states and ad hoc judges deviated from the votes of other Court members by 22% and 44%. While similar deviation are also found in the voting record of the advisory opinion. Hensley argued that national bias not only affects the judges’ decision making in contentious cases but also extended to advisory opinion cases. By highlighting how the voting patterns of the national judges differ from judges from non-party

Personally, I believe political ideology shouldn’t play a role in the appointment of a court justice system because not everyone shares the same ideology and by appointing those with the same ideology then when it comes to making decisions on issues everything will be one sided, and can affect a certain group. A perfect example of this is the 5-4 ruling on same-sex marriage and a response from who was considered to be “…the lion of the Court’s conservative wing, always ready to issue scathing assessments of liberal opinions (Bardes, Shelley, Schmidt 393), Antonin Scalia. According to the website CNN, Scalia found the court’s ruling to be a “…threat to American democracy", and further stating the Court has gone from dealing with serious issues