What Factors Affect The Confirmation Process Of A President's Candidates

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 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

Even with the respect of the senior Senator the majority Senate has to decide if the candidate will be beneficial to them, a litmus test is performed to see how the judge will decide. A litmus test is a test that shows what political ideology a candidate follows. If a Republican majority senate performs this test and sees that the candidate votes on issues with a strong liberal view they will likely not confirm the candidate. The litmus test however is not a guarantee on how a candidate will vote, some judges will not vote according to their political ideology, but just based on interpretation of the Constitution, as the Constitution is supreme law of the land.

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.

There has always been a history behind everything that the U.S. government has done. So why would the presidential selection process be any different. When looking at this procedure, unlike the Electoral College, the nominating of the presidential candidates are not spelled out in the constitution. Seeing as the constitution was written in the late 1700’s there were no political parties to speak of.

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

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.

Scalia surprisingly had no opposition in the Senate, and was confirmed by a 98-0 vote. This is pretty remarkable considering when Reagan attempted to nominate Bork in 1987 to fill Lewis Powell’s seat, the Senate denied his confirmation in a 42-58 vote. Antonin Scalia was not the first Supreme Court nominee to receive a unanimous approval from the Senate; however, in today’s politics a unanimous confirmation seems next to impossible. This is evidenced by the debate to fill Scalia’s seat following his death on February 13, 2016. The republican controlled Senate has vowed to deny the confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee by President Obama. Their reasoning is that it should be the responsibility of the next President to nominate a justice given that we are already well into the process of election our next President. However this violates a precedent set in 1988 when Ronald Reagan in his last year in office nominated Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court, where he was the last nominee to be unanimously approved in his Senate confirmation with a 97-0 vote. This raises the question of what has changed since 1988 in the criteria for approving a Supreme Court nominee in the

The nominee’s personal opinion can help when making a logical decision. This can help can help because if there is a court case then their opinion will help with the ruling. If a case of if abortion is legal or not and there are split sides that are even the judge can be the final word and decide the ruling. Another reason to look at the opinions of the nominee is because then when asked a question on gun rights they won’t be wishy washy and not know what side to choose. There opinion will be able to make a ruling on the case. The opinions help with logical problems, but also show where they stand.

The President of the United States, as stated by the Supreme Court, has the jurisdiction to appoint supreme court justices based on their own interpretation of what will benefit the country the most. In addition, United State’s citizens have already casted their vote. Because of this, the citizens have put their faith in him to complete all this duties effectively, which includes the appointment of justices when one resigns or dies. Although, it is necessary for there to be checks and balances with the senate put in place for such an important appointment so that one branch of the government does not overstep their responsibilities and become too powerful.

In the judicial branch you know that the judges are nominated by the president but when the president picks the judges he wants he or she actually gets sent to the legislative branch to be checked and maybe be confirmed by senate to become a judge. So if the senate disagrees with the president then they have the right to turn down his

The U.S. is the only continent where it takes a lot of hard work and have dramatic conflicts to select and appoint Federal Judges. The main reason why these jobs are very contested for and sought after by many is because of how the justices have terms for their entire life.. The lesser reason why a lot people and employees in Washington care so much as to who gets appointed is the case that they play a very big part in the public’s policy making. Judicial review is the primary role of the federal courts to discuss back and forth if a law is unconstitutional. Judicial review can also regulate the acts or behaviors that the Executive and Judicial carry out in legislation and the Courts may choose to declare those actions taken by the other branches or not those actions are unconstitutional or not. Judicial review is also the main source of power in the Supreme court 's. It has the option to bar the Executive and the Judiciary to fulfill what checks and balances set out to complete. Many people in the U.S. think that judicial review has power no doubt but, the people want to know how it is applied in our government specifically.The courts could use judicial review power in two ways during the fight to confirm Clarence Thomas: a strict-constructionist approach is an option where judges will only have the power to judge based only on what is implied on the constitution (non elastic). The other argument says that judges should try to use powers that are not specifically mentioned

The nominee needs to have previous experience in either state or federal courts, the President will usually select a nominee that has similar political views has him, the nominee needs to be loyal and in some cases the same political party as the President, last the nominees gender and ethnicity will differentiate them from others. (How Judges and Justices Are Chosen, 2014)

Any inquiry into the role of partisanship in judicial decisions must obviously begin with a normative question - how independent should judges be? And are partisanship and judicial independence antithetical concepts? There are many definitions of what judicial independence is, yet most agree on two aspects. First, the judiciary should be free from retaliation by interest groups or politicians for correct, yet unpopular, decisions. Second, judges should place the merits of each case and the legal interpretation of each case over their own static or progressive ambition (that is, their desire to remain on the bench or to seek a higher position in the judiciary or in another governmental office). There is, obviously, a tension between these two

How judges are chosen to sit on the courts in each state within the United States is different and in some places very controversial (Magelby, 2014). Currently, in the United States, we have five processes of how a person is appointed to the state courts. 1. Elected by a popular vote during state election cycles and have differing terms of office. The popular vote process is in twenty-one states. 2. Elected by the State Legislature, again having varying terms of office. There are seventeen states using the State Legislative process. 3. The Missouri plan, is a process of picking judges with a combination of appointed and elected methods (Magelby, 2014). An example of a Missouri plan is when a judge vacates an elected office