"Supreme Court appointments are always controversial." Discuss.

The president will probably commission a search for a suitable candidate. He will gain seek advice from different sources, such as his political advisors - senior White House aides and top officials in the Justice Department. The vast majority of Supreme Court justices are recruited from the federal Courts of Appeals, and of the current Court membership, seven of the nine justices were recruited from the federal Courts of Appeals, including both of Clinton's appointees.

A lot of the potential controversy surrounding an appointment is taken away by the fact that nominees have to be confirmed by the Senate, and this prevents presidents from nominating far-right or far-left judges, as the chances are that if they did, their nominations would simply be rejected. This was the case in 1987, when Robert Bork (the last man to be rejected), as he was considered both too conservative and too closely associated with Richard Nixon.

Most modern-day criticism of the appointment process and the main reason why Supreme Court appointments are always controversial is that the process has become too politicised - by the president, the Senate and by the media that cover the process. Presidents are often tempted to choose a justice whose political leaning reflects their own, unlike in the UK where judges must be strictly neutral and do not reveal their political leaning (if they have one). Republican presidents aim to pick a justice who is a strict constructionist and is conservative, whereas Democrat presidents want to choose a justice who is a liberal, loose constructionist.

Most presidents pick politically, and it is obvious why the two Clinton appointees on the Court give opinions that are distinctly and consistently of a liberal nature. Likewise it is no coincidence that the most conservative members of the Court were appointed by Nixon and Reagan. Many people see this as a problem as it means that a President can shape the Court's thinking for the next 15-20 years.

More controversy and criticism has come from the fact that the Senate has also been accused of politicising the confirmation process. The defeat of Robert Bork, who was thought to be one of the most outstanding jurists and scholars of his generation, for example, came about because there was a Democrat majority in the Senate at the time, and they did not want a conservative justice on the Court.

Similarly, when President Bush Snr. appointed Clarence Thomas in 1991, the Senate could justifiably questioned his dull qualifications, but instead chose to concentrate on his conservative philosophy and the allegations of sexual harassment brought against him by a black female work colleague. This just shows that the Senate considered his nomination, not in a neutral way, concentrating on how qualified he was, but instead considered it in a partisan fashion, and this is another reason why appointments are controversial, because a nomination will be made on the basis of the political views of a nominee, and will only get confirmed if Republican Senate, for example does not consider the appointee to be too liberal, or a Democrat Senate does not consider the appointee to be too conservative.