• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Supreme Court Appointments are always controversial" Discuss

Extracts from this document...


'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.


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.


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

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Peer reviewed

    Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?

    4 star(s)

    However as the Supreme Court seem to be the best candidates for this, it is not necessarily negative and may be the way things 'have' to be. However where the political aspect of the Supreme Court becomes negative is when it is used to overrule the founding fathers or to interpret the constitution according to what we think now.

  2. Using examples, explain the limitations on the Supreme Courts powers.How do Presidents veto legislation, ...

    A presidential veto is a power vested in the president by Article II of the Constitution, by which he may return a bill to Congress unsigned, along with the reasons for his objection. Congress mat override a presidential veto by a two-thirds vote in both houses.

  1. US pressures groups are undemocratic, discuss

    Defenders of pressure groups would argue that no single group or interest holds a disproportionately powerful position for a sustained period of time or across a range of different policy areas. Political power regularly changes hands and this is the case with pressure groups.

  2. presidential power how far does it go

    use mind altering drugs; threatening imminent death of the captive or a third person. The bottom line is that the waterboarding (an interrogation technique that simulates drowning) while admitted to by the military had as yet to be defined as torture.

  1. GLOBAL WARMING It has been a controversial issue for so long and no one ...

    warns there is only a small window of 10 to 15 years to address the problem" before it gets out of hand. Heat stress and other heat related health problems are caused directly by very warm temperatures and high humidity. Untreated heat stress can be a very serious medical problem.

  2. Overpaid and Underworked: Plight of the Canadian Senate

    The House of Senate was designed to offer equality for every state with the emergence of the rule of 2 Senators per state. No matter how small Rhode Island is compared to the vast bounds of Texas, all states share an equal voice.

  1. Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court

    Antonin Scalia was appointed by Republican President Reagan in 1986 after Justice William Rehnquist vacated his seat, having been moved to the position of Chief Justice. A Chief Justice who commands the bench may be an echo chamber of past presidents.

  2. '9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme ...

    was obviously well qualified for the position as a Supreme Court Justice. However, he was an advocate of the judicial philosophy originalism, which tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution[4]. These highly conservative views were unacceptable to the Democrat controlled Senate, and so they rejected his appointment[5].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work