|
|
|
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
Updated Sunday, November 22, 2009 03:55 PM. .
7-29-09 Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court has been reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the whole Senate with a 13-6 positive vote. The appointment is historic because of the Judge's Latina background, the first Hispanic to be appointed to the Court in its history. One Republican on the Committee supported the nomination. A full floor vote of the Senate is expected by August 6th when the Senator goes on its summer recess. If confirmed by the Senate with a majority vote, the Judge will surely be sworn in immediately and will begin the process of organizing her office such as hiring lawyer interns and considering the cases which will be considered by the Supreme Court in its Fall 2009 term. The Judge is generally considered a moderate judge in prior decisions, and will increase the number of women to two, replacing Justice Souter who is retiring. 05-02-09 - President Obama is likely to have two or three Supreme Court appointments during his Presidency. This has largely to do with the age of the present Justices, or their various illnesses which may cause them to leave the Court. The Democrats will be able to confirm almost any candidate who does not have legal issues, such as unpaid income taxes, etc. Normally those defects are eliminated during the vetting process - but not always. The Justice Thomas confirmation was got mixed up in sexual harassment charges. The Republicans forced that nomination through the confirmation process in the United States Senate - and the Democrats are likely to do the same - whatever the opposition politically. If Osama's conduct in appointments so far is any indication of where he is going - these nominations will include a couple of women, probably an Hispanic in the mix - all logical Democratic nominees. He is almost certain to select nominees who are committed to a woman's right to choose in reproduction matters, and Roe v. Wade. He probably consolidates the Supreme Court as a liberal tilted Court for at least 30 years. The conservative forces will be livid about it in public - whatever they practice in private. The next 3-4 months will be a classic study in how that nomination and confirmation process in the Senate works! 05-02-09 High End Patronage Update: Now that the Illinois seat is filled by the former Governor - the Congress has an itch to amend the Constitution to make Senate replacements elective rather than appointive. If they get around to it - the amendment is likely pass. The Governor appointment system through the last century has produced some strange and not very representative people - wives, kids, buddies, etc etc. Watch for an early move to amend! 2-06-09 The President-Elect's open Senate seat in Illinois has reminded us of really high end forms of personal patronage tucked away in our Constitution's 17th Amendment. That power of appointment is vested in the Governors of the several States. From the signing of the Constitution until April 18th, 1913, the state legislatures selected Senator - with increasing abuse and corruption until the new amendment gave that power to the People in the following words of the 17th Amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." The Governor of Illinois has appointed a replacement under this power for the seat of Barack Obama. He apparently tried to "sell" the appointment - a common abuse in patronage issues, although fiercely illegal and criminal. The outcome is still in question. 1-1-09 Supreme Court Opening: Sadly, the serious illness of Justice Ginsberg, announced today - will have the Justice Department and the White House polishing up the short list of new possible nominees to the Supreme Court. President Obama is likely to nominate a women, and more likely to nominate a liberal Justice. Such an appointment will maintain the present balance of gender as well as politics on the Court. 2-06-09 Federal Judge faces Impeachment: A Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals judge who participated in the drafting of the Bush Administration Torture memos faces impeachment for his work in the Justice Department - before he was appointed to the Bench. This is an appointee case worth watching because it is going to illustrate the long term implications of one's conduct as a Presidential appointee. It seems probable that the Judge will retain his position - but will always be marked with the torture problems in the Bush Administration and will not advance to higher position. (04-24-09) Federal Judges have long been one of the most stable and sensible parts of the United States government. In recent months the number of Judges under examination for misconduct has grown dramatically - causing serious alarm across the legal system. A detailed study appears in the Houston Chronicle today. 10-13-08 Throughout the long Presidential primaries and general campaign for 2008, Supreme Court Judge appointments has been a important issue with a real impact on voter decisions. Mitt Romney - campaigning on behalf of the McCain ticket - reminded an audience in Elko, Nevada, that John McCain would make judicial nominations along the lines of the Bush Samuel Alito and John Roberts appointments. 10-4-08 . . .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 - 2009
|
09-07-
09
Judge
Sotomayor
makes
her
first
public
times
on
the
Supreme Court
this
week,
hearing
a
left-over
case
from
the
last
term.
The
regular
term
of
the
Court
opens
in
early
October