A LITTLE BACKGROUND
It’s the president’s role to nominate a lawyer when there is a vacant judicial position. The Senate Judiciary Committee is then sent the nomination, where they gather background information about the nominee from the FBI. They then thoroughly review the nominee’s record. The committee then has a hearing in which senators question the nominee and witnesses speak in favor and against the person in question. Once the Judiciary Committee votes, it makes a recommendation to the Senate that the nominee should either be confirmed, rejected or that the nominee will receive no recommendation because the committee decides not to send a nominee to the Senate. The Senate must have a 3/5 vote (60 senators) to make a decision. Senators can filibuster the vote if they choose to delay the vote on the nominee. When the debate is complete, all that is needed is a majority vote of the senators present.
CALIBER OF JUSTICES
I think we are getting the caliber of justices we ought to expect. I agree with Nixon’s decision to only allow previous lawyers to be nominated to the court. Not only does this allow us to have justices who know the Constitution well and have a background in the judicial system, but they are also less likely to be bias toward their party. When presidents used to nominate politicians or people in their party that they owed a favor to, the American people weren’t getting the caliber of justices that they deserved.
If I could offer a suggestion, it would be that there should be more justices to choose from. For instance, when choosing Elena Kagan, a dean of the Harvard School of Law, it would have been nice to have another nominee in which we could see his or her previous cases and judge better about how he or she would rule in future cases. I’m not saying that Kagan isn’t qualified or that we shouldn’t take the president’s nominations seriously, but I would feel better about the caliber of our justices if the Senate Judiciary Committee had choices instead of simply choosing whether or not to recommend a nominee.
Although I think we as citizens need to expect a certain political objectivity from our Supreme Court justices, I don’t think we should expect them to be apolitical. Every member of the Senate and House of Representatives and even the president claims a party. Why should we ask our Supreme Court justices to do differently? We ask our media to be objective and to not have political parties, but complain that reporters still lean politically. I’d rather have justices who are open about their political parties than ones who say they are objective but then rule on cases in a nonobjective way.
However, I think lines can be crossed. For instance, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has launched a tea-party group that could test the waters of impartiality in the court.
“I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you.” – Virginia Thomas, as quoted in a recent Los Angeles Times article.
But should people so closely related to the court be allowed to have such involvement? Since Virginia isn’t a justice herself, should she be allowed to be involved? My answer is no. Would we throw a fit if Michelle Obama launched a tea-party group? Yes. And one can argue that Virginia as much weight, if not more than Michelle because Virginia’s husband is making decisions on court cases that rely on him being as objective as possible even if he’s open about his political party.
When choosing a Supreme Court nominee, I think it is fine that the president chooses someone from his own party. Like I said before, it’s rare to find a nominee that is a true moderate. If the president is allowed to use his pull with his political party to pass legislature, then I think he should be allowed to do so when choosing a Supreme Court nominee. However, I think the president needs to set standards that say that justices and their close family can’t have strong political ties. They may base their decisions on influence from their political party, but they cannot become active in politics beyond their roles as justices.
I’d rather have justices who are open about their political parties than ones who say they are objective but then rule on cases in a nonobjective way.
ReplyDelete^ I agree completely. Transparency in the Supreme Court and maybe upper level appellate courts would be a good thing, but maybe not for lower courts. In lower courts, it could lead to an influx of appeals merely because the justice isn't of the same party, even in cases when there are really no politics involved.
Even though we all can see this as a charade, I believe some sort of apolitical necessity should be engaged as these judges are making decisions regarding the Constitutionality of law. Though it may not make a difference at the present with the idea that the executive no longer has a "friendly court", I do not desire justices open about their political parties even though the president selecting or their records tend to clearly identify them to one or the other. I believe discretion can allow at least a minimal buffer from the future chance of the Court becoming too political.
ReplyDelete