Tue. Nov 29th, 2022

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Appointment Clause, empowers the President to appoint the United States Senate and appoint officials, including Supreme Court justices, with the confirmation (deliberation and consent) of the United States Senate. This clause is an example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The Speaker has the power of the plenary to appoint and appoint, while the Senate has the power of the plenary to reject or confirm the nominee prior to his or her appointment. [4] The upcoming battle for President Obama`s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, leaves both parties digging on their heels, with Republicans setting a vague precedent that nominations are not considered in an election year, and Democrats claiming that Republicans have a “constitutional responsibility.” at least hold hearings and a vote on a candidate. The president appoints someone for a vacancy on the court and the Senate votes to confirm the candidate, which requires a simple majority. In this way, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government have a say in the composition of the Supreme Court. www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/kelly-ayotte-ron-johnson–reelection-prospects-with-supreme-court-stance.html In 1916 and 1932, election year vacancies were quickly filled by the Senate, but both appeared when the presidency and the Senate were controlled by the same party. The situation in 1916 was unusual because incumbent Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned after accepting the Republican nomination to challenge President Woodrow Wilson. Therefore, when the Senate is in recess, the Speaker may, without the Council and the consent of the Senate, make a temporary appointment for any position that requires senate approval, including filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. Such a break, which was appointed to the Supreme Court, remains in office only until the end of the next session of the Senate (always less than two years). To continue to serve and be remunerated for service, the nominee must be formally appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Of the 12 judges appointed during the break (two as Chief Justice and ten as Associate Justice), only Chief Justice John Rutledge was subsequently not confirmed for a regular appointment. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has appealed the Supreme Court break, and the practice has become highly controversial, even when applied to lower federal courts. During the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership of the Senate explicitly prevented President George W. Bush, a Republican, from making nominations through pro forma sessions. The grammar of the clause itself is revealing: the act of appointment is separated from the act of appointment by a comma and a conjunction. Only the latter act is limited by the expression “advice and consent”. Moreover, it is not at all uncommon to use the word deliberation in relation to the Senate`s approach to confirm an appointment. Senate approval is consultative, since confirmation does not require the Speaker to appoint and authorize the confirmed candidate. Instead, after the approval of the council and the senate, the president can deliberate again before nominating the candidate. Most presidents appoint people who broadly share their ideological views. [5] In many cases, however, a judge`s decisions may be inconsistent with what the appointing chair expected. A famous example was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Dwight D.

Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the court`s history. Eisenhower later called the appointment “the greatest foolish mistake I`ve ever made.” [6] Another judge whose decisions contradicted his ideology was David Souter, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1990. Many experts and politicians of the time expected Souter to be a conservative; However, after becoming a judge, his views generally fell to the liberal side of the political spectrum. Ironically, Wisconsin is currently represented in the Senate by Senator Ron Johnson, who has consistently and sharply attacked President Obama on the grounds that the Obama administration is overstepping its constitutional powers by implementing the Affordable Care Act or issuing executive orders to enforce immigration regulations. Senator Johnson, as a sitting senator, even took the unusual step of suing the Obama administration in federal court for abuse of powers. Given Senator McConnell`s announcement today, it is questionable whether he will find it appropriate to condemn the unconstitutional seizure of power in his own chamber of Congress.

Photo: List of potential Supreme Court nominees with handwritten notes from President Gerald Ford. I am not a lawyer. However, it seems to me that the President can ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the Senate`s refusal to respond to his nominee is a violation of the Constitution. If it is a violation, can the court make an order requiring the Senate to act? So Pierce received the Supreme Court nomination as soon as he became president. (His nominee was confirmed a day after the nomination was submitted to the Senate.) Johnson was then a lame duck who had decided not to run again. While Democrats controlled the Senate, Southern Democrats were angered by Warren Court`s record on jurisprudence — and Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon had promised to appoint a Southerner as his first choice on the Supreme Court.

By admin

    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop