UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
Updated Sunday, February 03, 2008 08:23 PM
. .
.Throughout the history of the United States Supreme Court, appointments of Justices has rocked the Constitutional system which established a nomination by the President and a confirmation by the Senate's responsibility to Advise and Consent. After every appointment the strength of the checks and balances has been nourished and the Nation faced with a fight and occasional needs to bind up the wounds of nomination controversy. But - the process has explored issues of great importance and moved the process of civilizing the society in a generally forward way. After a ten year hiatus in appointments - this next round of appointments will be "new business" for many Americans, and a reminder of the way we are governed under the Constitution.
The Formal Nomination
The President of the United States is charged in the Constitution with Nominating a person to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. That name is forwarded to the United States Senate which Advises and Consents to that nomination or does not. If Consent is given, the person is sworn in immediately to be a Justice. A person is nominated to be Justice or Chief Justice.
Advise and Consent
The Senate of the United States is charged by Constitution to Advise and Consent to any nomination to the Supreme Court. Without that Consent, a person cannot become a Justice of the Supreme Court.
The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations
February 08 2007: There have been recent informal comments in the press by Justice Ginsburg. Among the comments are feelings about the number of women on the Supreme Court. While she suggested a certain sorrow with Justice O'Connor retired, her comments remind us how slowly women have been added to the court. There are now enough women lawyers who have worked their way up through the seniority of the law and the courts that more women on the Supreme Court ought to happen soon.
December 15 2006: The change in power in the Senate where Judicial confirmations occur will force the Bush Administration into more moderate appointments than they have presented for some openings in the past. There is little doubt that the two recent Supreme Court Appointments appeared to be quite moderate, and there hasn't been enough experience at the end of 2006 to suggest it is going to be otherwise.
March 31, 2006: With two nominations confirmed, the President escaped bruising fights over the nominations. His adventure in nominating White House counsel and then withdrawing illustrated one of the few times the President exerted his position over the power of his handlers, and he was punished for it. Since then both his disillusionment and his acceptance has declined. He operates like January 20 09 will be a happy day and a big relief.
The new Supreme Court Justices are far too early in their appointments to know their policy positions - but they are clearly making conservative Republicans nervous. For now - the Court is not fully loaded with conservative Bush guys to make it conservative enough for the Far Right.
November 8, 2004: Quite clearly - there is going to be a new Chief Justice soon. Chief Justice Rehnquist is reportedly ill of an aggressive form of cancer. While a prediction of an early retirement is the fodder of a wager - and there is a history of more than two centuries of wrong guesses - this one looks imminent when the Court retires for the year end break, if not sooner. It is (almost) inconceivable that George Bush will not nominate a new Chief Justice, and relatively soon.
While the White House keeps a list prospective Supreme Court nominees handy all the time - it is a guarantee that it is being polished in preparation for the pending nomination. It is also a guarantee that there have been hundreds of letters, calls, e-mails and cocktail conversations by those attempting to get on that list - or attempting to put somebody else on the short list since the Chief Justice's illness was announced. A few of those will be "vetted" - back grounded for information that might be used in Senate hearings on a nomination. That obviously includes crimes and financial problems, and those dicey indiscretions which brings awkward surprises in hearings. But - the real pressures come from interest groups. This time around - the Conservative Right and the true-believers of rightist religious organizations expect litmus test conformity to their views. Clearly the White House is sensitive to all that - but some of those people are going to be irritated and disappointed by the President.
Don't be surprised if the President reaches into the category of distinguished politicians or jurists who are generally identified conservative Republicans - but not on the preferred list of interest groups. The President is not likely to love the idea of a blistering and vicious confirmation fight - such a fight could easily divert his legislative program or make enemies who will buck him through the next four years. A doctrinaire nomination is likely to give the opposition, including the Democrat's minority, just the issue they want to use in building the Party.
(Other Opinions: We will post e-mail messages on the nomination issues at our discretion. The only real limiters are the length of a submission, and we will not post offensive material which is not relevant. Otherwise, all views on all sides are welcome. E-mail submissions to Director@Presidential-Appointments.org.
Copyright John Isaacson 2003 - 2008