"Supreme Court Appointments are always controversial" Discuss
Extracts from this document...
Introduction
'Supreme Court appointments are always controversial' discuss There are nearly always arguments over whether an appointment to the Supreme Court was correct or not. However, we can see that the court is pretty balanced between conservatives and liberals. Some might say that Supreme Court appointments are controversial simply because of the nature of them - they are political appointments. Some may also say that these appointments must be controversial, because a Supreme Court appointment - is for life, and they are also granted the power of judicial review. Therefore if there is no debate over a nomination - surely there must be something wrong, as it would be extremely hard to have a 'perfect' appointment per se. Others may say that the controversy of the appointment really depends on which seat is up for grabs. Judicial nominations are considered extremely important - firstly because they occur infrequently, secondly, the appointments are for life, thirdly, there are only nine members of the Supreme Court, so therefore In appointing a justice, a president is replacing one ninth of the court membership and lastly because of the power of judicial review as I said earlier. ...read more.
Middle
bush. Also, because of the somewhat flexibility of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court is able to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit. The Constitution is interpreted every day by the Supreme Court, and therefore The type of nomination however, could dictate how controversial the appointment is. Candidates could be nominated by the President as he believes they share his/her judicial philosophy. As we saw recently with Obama appointing Sonia Sotomayor in the hope to create an echo chamber for him in the Court. However, it could also be argued that not always are judicial nominations controversial because of Congressional oversight. Judicial nominations must first go through an extremely gruelling process, prior to their appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court. The process involves firstly a vacancy occurs through voluntary retirement, death or impeachment, the President will then investigate a search for possible nominees and interviews short-listed candidates. After the interviews have taken place, the president will announce his nominee. ...read more.
Conclusion
statement, this is because I really believe that it depends on the seat that is being filled, and how it affects the balance of the court - as we saw with Sotomayor, this was an extremely un controversial appointment, as she did not overly affect the balance of the court. Also, largely controversial appointments do not get through to confirmation process, and as we saw with Harriet Miers, if the nomination is not up to the job - they will not get a confirmation by the Senate. However, appointments are still hugely political, and a President will look to nominate a candidate who shares a similar political ideology - regardless of their qualifications in some cases. However, I still believe that in general, there must be some degree of controversy in the nomination process, as this will ensure that the correct person is nominated and then confirmed, simply because of the magnitude and scope of the position, the powers it holds and the ways it can affect the people of the United States. ...read more.
The above preview is unformatted text
This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- 150,000+ documents available
- Just £6.99 a month
