Supreme Court Appointment Process

The Supreme Court is commonly thought to be “above politics,” since they are there to just interpret the law and not argue politic, inevitably though, politics still manages to seep in. In fact the appointment of justices is, in reality, extremely political due to all the factors needed to be appointed. In order to be a justice three main characteristics are needed: ideology, ethnicity, and political experience. Each one has a profound impact in the appointment process. Interests groups are extremely concerned with the whole process because it could help or hurt the interests groups and it constitutions for generations if a justice is appointed that has contradictory views. Therefore, interest groups use two methods to influence the appointment process, advertisements and lobbying the Senate. Both have had major influence in the appointment process to help shift appointments in the interest groups favor. A main characteristic of a Supreme Court nominee is his ideology. In Article II of the Constitution, it provides the President with the power to nominate federal judges, subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. In designing this structure for sharing power between the executive and legislative branches, the founders intended to ensure an independent federal judiciary. Such independence is critical, since federal judges receive lifetime appointments and are called upon to make critical decisions affecting the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution, federal civil rights laws, and other key protections. Because of this, civil rights advocates have long monitored the integrity of the processes for nominating and confirming judicial and other key federal appointments - insisting that such processes be fair, open, and balanced. Therefore, a candidate's ideology is so important in the appointment process. In other words, a president with a liberal ideology will usually appoint liberals to the courts. Likewise, conservative presidents tend to appoint conservatives. Presidents will do this because a justice job is for life and the justice will almost always outlive the president politically who appointed him ,therefore when the president appoints a certain candidate it is like an extension of himself. The president wants to insure that his ideology will stay in Washington and have a strong advocate. This judge is in a sense the president’s legacy. The federal courts should not be packed with extreme ideologues who have demonstrated that they will use their own ideology - and not legal precedent - to decide cases. Ideology …show more content…
Until relatively recently, almost all federal judges were white males. Today, however, gender are important criteria for appointing judges. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. All recent presidents have appointed African Americans, Latinos, members of other ethnic minority groups, and women to district courts and courts of appeal. The president wants ethnic diversity in order for the public to feel that the top Court is looking out for everyone not just the white males, as it was years ago. Additionally, when the election time rolls around the President will be able to get lations votes or african American, which he previously may not have had. Now with him nomination a latino or african american judge he will get his votes. Ethnicity and the appointment process in al i extremely