The Pros And Cons Of Presidential Voting

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

Against this factors are; Chief Justice John Roberts emphasize on the SSM as being a democratic disrespect, judicial putsch by associate justice Antonin, inextricably linked by justice Samuel Alito and many other factors. Thus, it is essential to consider the actual changes in the opinion count resulting from a decision and the political backlash to adequately determine the relationship between the Supreme Court’s decision and the public

Today, Supreme Court Nominee’s, Neil Gorsuch, Confirmation hearing came near conclusion on a very confrontational note with the Senate’s Principal Democrat threatening to filibuster. This would complicate the way the senate “conducts its business”. The Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch only have a 52-majority instead of the 60-majority that is necessary. However, they say he will be confirmed anyway, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s decision to filibuster was not unexpected but it will increase tension in the senate. “If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said. Although the democrats do not have the votes to block this motion, his filibuster will publicize the resistance in the Congress.

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 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

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

The United States president, Barack Obama, nominated a longtime federal judge Merrick Garland to take the position of the Supreme Court and replace the former justice, Antonin Scalia. Merrick Garland’s past decisions related to different issues had made him the talk of the town. Although Garland has a 19 year record on the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, this does not lend him to a fast evaluation (Mcshane).

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

“Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances. Substitute statute for decision, and you shift the center of authority, but add no quota of inspired wisdom.” —— Benjamin N. Cardozo[1]. In the view of many citizens, Supreme Court Justices are like legal machines, interpreting constitution to promise American people of equal justice. Throughout American history, numerous case laws have established the pattern of judicial decisions of U.S., thus making little room for new legislation. However, even Supreme Court Justices are human beings, who can be influenced by various factors. It’s not that simple to determine the inclination of a justice to his or her religious belief, political philosophy and ideology. The essence of judicial process requires a justice to vote under any circumstance based on law, precedents and most important, constitution. No Supreme Court Justice will say that he or she has personal or political

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.

In the United States, the Electoral College determines the victor of a national election. Each state has its own number of electoral votes, which is determined by state population. This system is a “winner takes all” system. Which means the candidate with 50 percent or more of the votes in an individual state gets all of that states electoral votes. The 2016 presidential election will have 538 electoral votes, this means that the election will be decided who is the first candidate to 270 votes. Some people have seen this system as outdated and unjust. Many are looking at a way to change the system and others would like to do away with the system

Research suggests that the Electoral College system should be amended because it poorly illustrates democracy, is outdated and

Our Founding Fathers had great concern over the topic of the government obtaining too much power over the people and with that in mind they constructed a system of indirect election where citizens would choose an elector. That system would distant the citizens from directly electing the president, avoiding any possibility to create tyranny. Their fears were about whether citizens could exercise the best judgement and their capability to fully understand and make good choices in voting. They did not want a group to go off in the wrong direction and take control over others. They thought that a chosen group of more educated and elite individuals elected by the people would be able to better interpret the situation and exercise better judgement. In a way, they were trying to safeguard democracy by instituting the Electoral College as the method to elect our presidents.

The Electoral College is something that affects every citizen in this country. The Presidential election is also something that many people feel passionate about, regardless of where you are. In the Presidential Election, Minnesota has voted for the democratic candidate almost every time in the last 100 years. However, Waconia has not been the best representation of the state's views, since it is one of the most conservative cities in the nation, making it a very unique place to live, politically. Because I have lived in Waconia and Minnesota my whole life, I have seen both sides of the Electoral College and how it affects my surroundings. The Electoral College is valuable for this state in the sense that it gives Minnesota some importance come election, even if we do vote democratic nine times out of ten. For the city of Waconia, the Electoral College might make citizens here think it is not the best system since most republican voters might feel like their votes mean nothing in the end, because of the consistent trend of this state voting for the democratic candidate.

The Electoral College was first established in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by the founding fathers as a compromise between the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens and a vote in Congress. The Electoral College was established because the founding fathers did not trust he people in making the right choice. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors who cast their votes in order to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States, however a majority of 270 votes is required to win. As of today, each state currently has members ranging from 3 to 55 members per state. When ordinary people vote for a president, they are not voting for their president, but rather for the presidential electors.