The Federal Judiciary system in America is often called the least democratic of the three branches of gvernment. After all, U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote in a state, U.S. Representatives are elected by popular vote in their districts, and the President and his vice-president are elected by the Electoral College. Given the fact that Federal Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate, it is probably indeed an accurate statement to say that the Judicial branch is the least democratic of the three branches. This is because unlike the Executive and Legislative Branches, the people do not have a direct influence on the appointments. However, to say that the Judicial branch is entirely void of any politics would be an entirely inaccurate statement. The president is inevitably looking for someone who has a similar ideology as him and the Senate often makes it very tough for the President to have nominees approved. Also, the eye of the media is always looking for controversy within the Judicial Branch, often, a very large faction of people disagree with decisions made in the courts, and there is debate surrounding transperancy in the Supreme Court. Generally speaking, more liberal presidents are in search for more liberal judges, while more conservative presidents are in search of more conservative judges. For lower level court appointees, the president will often assign Senators or Representatives from his own party to appoint the judges. This process can often be very political because of the confirmation hearings in congress. For example, when Democratic President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices while congress was controlled by republicans, he had to pick more moderate justices who would stand a chance against the congressional Republicans. However, as an opposing example, when Democratic President Barack Obama had the opportunity to appoint Justices with a Democratic-controlled congress he was able to choose someone who was much more libral according to a lot of people. It is also important to keep in mind that sometimes when a justice is appointed by a president, they do not turn out to be as liberal or conservative as the president intended. For example, Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, he intended for her to be a very conservative justice. However, over time, she has proven to be a much more moderate justice. The media and the citizens of the United States also make the Judicial Branch a little bit more political. The media always brings out controversial issues from the courts such as current issues like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Westboro Baptist Supreme Court Hearing and the Citizens United case. Also, the people of America also too are very ready to disagree with decisions made in the Judicial. The media and the people add to the already political process.
Of the three branches of government, the courts are the least democratic. Federal judges are not elected, they may no be removed from office except by impeachment, and the decisions of the courts may only be reversed by higher courts.
The courts are not entirely independent of popular influence for two reasons. First the justices are appointed by the president, at least partly because they agree with his political points of view and ideologies. Therefore, even though they do not have the pressure to seek reelection, they are chosen at least partly because of their political biases. Second, Justices follow election returns, read newspapers, get mail supporting both sides of the issues they must decide, and understand that their decisions either support or refute public opinion. Justices are aware that court orders that flagrantly go against public opinion are likely to be ignored. Such a case was the Dred Scott decision, which infuriated the North because it supported slaveholders outside the South.
Although justices are theoretically above politics, they do hold political ideologies and their points of view often influence their decisions. One great example of that is when the Supreme Court, under Earl Warren and Warren Burger, made decisions that were notably liberal. When President G.W. Bush's nominee, John Roberts as chief justice and Samuel Alito as associate justice, were confirmed by the Senate, the court continued its move to the right. In 2009, Sonia Sotomayor joined the Court, but this did not change the move of the court to the right, as both Souter and Sotomayor are more liberal to moderate. Currently, four justices are consistently conservative and four are liberal to moderate and one is moderate to conservative. As a result, Justice Kennedy often serves as the "swing" vote, with decisions resting on his point of view. In the 2 years of the Roberts Court, there have been many decisions with only a 5-4 majority. Two recent examples are Boumendiene v. Bush, 2008 and District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008. The Boumendiene decision guaranteed the right of habeas corpus to the Guantanamo detainees and the Heller case ensured the right of individuals to own a gun for private use. In both of these cases Justice Kennedy provided the swing vote, one for the liberal side in the Boumendiene case and one for the conservative view in the Heller Case.
90% of federal judicial appointments go to members of the president's political party--see chart in text.
The Court is concerned for its reputation and legitimacy and will not go to far beyond public opinion. For example the Brown decision allowed implementation "with all deliberate speed."
A constitutional amendment, not just a law, can reverse a Supreme Court decision. Amendments to allow school prayer have been initiated but have not passed a 2/3 vote of Congress.
Congress can change the structure of the lower courts and the number of judges on the Supreme Court.
The Federal Judiciary system in America is often called the least democratic of the three branches of gvernment. After all, U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote in a state, U.S. Representatives are elected by popular vote in their districts, and the President and his vice-president are elected by the Electoral College. Given the fact that Federal Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate, it is probably indeed an accurate statement to say that the Judicial branch is the least democratic of the three branches. This is because unlike the Executive and Legislative Branches, the people do not have a direct influence on the appointments. However, to say that the Judicial branch is entirely void of any politics would be an entirely inaccurate statement. The president is inevitably looking for someone who has a similar ideology as him and the Senate often makes it very tough for the President to have nominees approved. Also, the eye of the media is always looking for controversy within the Judicial Branch, often, a very large faction of people disagree with decisions made in the courts, and there is debate surrounding transperancy in the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, more liberal presidents are in search for more liberal judges, while more conservative presidents are in search of more conservative judges. For lower level court appointees, the president will often assign Senators or Representatives from his own party to appoint the judges. This process can often be very political because of the confirmation hearings in congress. For example, when Democratic President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices while congress was controlled by republicans, he had to pick more moderate justices who would stand a chance against the congressional Republicans. However, as an opposing example, when Democratic President Barack Obama had the opportunity to appoint Justices with a Democratic-controlled congress he was able to choose someone who was much more libral according to a lot of people. It is also important to keep in mind that sometimes when a justice is appointed by a president, they do not turn out to be as liberal or conservative as the president intended. For example, Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, he intended for her to be a very conservative justice. However, over time, she has proven to be a much more moderate justice.
The media and the citizens of the United States also make the Judicial Branch a little bit more political. The media always brings out controversial issues from the courts such as current issues like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Westboro Baptist Supreme Court Hearing and the Citizens United case. Also, the people of America also too are very ready to disagree with decisions made in the Judicial. The media and the people add to the already political process.
Of the three branches of government, the courts are the least democratic. Federal judges are not elected, they may no be removed from office except by impeachment, and the decisions of the courts may only be reversed by higher courts.
ReplyDeleteThe courts are not entirely independent of popular influence for two reasons. First the justices are appointed by the president, at least partly because they agree with his political points of view and ideologies. Therefore, even though they do not have the pressure to seek reelection, they are chosen at least partly because of their political biases. Second, Justices follow election returns, read newspapers, get mail supporting both sides of the issues they must decide, and understand that their decisions either support or refute public opinion. Justices are aware that court orders that flagrantly go against public opinion are likely to be ignored. Such a case was the Dred Scott decision, which infuriated the North because it supported slaveholders outside the South.
Although justices are theoretically above politics, they do hold political ideologies and their points of view often influence their decisions. One great example of that is when the Supreme Court, under Earl Warren and Warren Burger, made decisions that were notably liberal. When President G.W. Bush's nominee, John Roberts as chief justice and Samuel Alito as associate justice, were confirmed by the Senate, the court continued its move to the right. In 2009, Sonia Sotomayor joined the Court, but this did not change the move of the court to the right, as both Souter and Sotomayor are more liberal to moderate. Currently, four justices are consistently conservative and four are liberal to moderate and one is moderate to conservative. As a result, Justice Kennedy often serves as the "swing" vote, with decisions resting on his point of view. In the 2 years of the Roberts Court, there have been many decisions with only a 5-4 majority. Two recent examples are Boumendiene v. Bush, 2008 and District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008. The Boumendiene decision guaranteed the right of habeas corpus to the Guantanamo detainees and the Heller case ensured the right of individuals to own a gun for private use. In both of these cases Justice Kennedy provided the swing vote, one for the liberal side in the Boumendiene case and one for the conservative view in the Heller Case.
90% of federal judicial appointments go to members of the president's political party--see chart in text.
ReplyDeleteThe Court is concerned for its reputation and legitimacy and will not go to far beyond public opinion. For example the Brown decision allowed implementation "with all deliberate speed."
A constitutional amendment, not just a law, can reverse a Supreme Court decision. Amendments to allow school prayer have been initiated but have not passed a 2/3 vote of Congress.
Congress can change the structure of the lower courts and the number of judges on the Supreme Court.