This essay discusses Appointment of Federal Judges and the Politicized Nature of the Judiciary. The Judiciary of the United States is supposed to be free of all political influences, according to the Federalists at the time of the founding of the Nation, the Supreme Court, being insulated from politics, would have no determination to impose its will on people (Lowi, Ginsberg and Shepsle).
However in practice the Supreme Court has rarely been free of political influences. Each party in power attempts to fill the Supreme Court with judges who agree with their ideology. The ideologically motivated nature of the Supreme Court judges has been alleged to be the source of such judicial decisions as the Bush v. Gore (2000) which resulted in the handover of the Presidency to George W. Bush and the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that resulted in the end of school segregation in the South (Lowi, Ginsberg and Shepsle).
The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint Federal Judges with the ‘advice and consent’ of the Congress (U.S. Constitution. Art. II, Sec. II). The government of the United States has in different times had different interpretations of what the term ‘advice and consent’ means in practice. In modern times ‘advice and consent’ has been interpreted to mean the President nominates individuals to the Supreme Court and these nominees present themselves before the Senate. These nominees are put to some questioning by the members of the Senate and their confirmation to the Supreme Court is then put to vote.
To confirm an individual to the Supreme Court, they must have support of at least 3/5th of the members of the Senate in attendance at a special session of the Senate that is called a ‘confirmation hearing’.(Sachs, 2003).
Kindly order term papers, essays, research papers, dissertations, thesis, book reports from the order page.