Appointment of Supreme Court Judges - Literature review Example

The process of appointment of Supreme Court s that 'the President will nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of Supreme Court' (Rutkus 2005). The above statement shows that the appointment process of Supreme Court Judges is purely based on the President's nomination. President can nominate anyone and if the Senate agrees with the nomination, the person will become a Judge at Supreme Court for lifetime. Although it is not stated anywhere formally, but history proves that most of the Supreme Court Judges were nominated by presidents based on ideological similarities, political affiliations, ethnicity, religion, and gender (Rutkus 2005 p.9). Of course, the qualification, experience, and decision making capabilities are also analyzed and form an integral part of the appointment process.

Almost everyone would maintain that the appointment of Supreme Court Judges should not be made using the above criteria as this violates the principles of independence. A Supreme Court is the highest judicial bench in the country and as such, the decisions should be taken on merit; without prejudice to any person, belief, or religion; and after careful analysis of all evidences. However, if the appointments are made based on personal preferences, the decisions may be skewed towards the state and according to the desires of President's office.

This creates the controversy that Supreme Court is not as independent as one would like it to be.However, there are instances where Supreme Court decision was opposite to what the President would have wanted. Some famous incidents are quoted from The New York Times:'''The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made,'' Dwight D. Eisenhower said of his appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who discomfited him with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling ordering desegregation of public schools, and other liberal opinions. Harry S. Truman was even more scathing about Justice Tom C.

Clark, a Truman appointee who voted against his 1952 seizure of the steel industry to avert a strike.' (Purdum 2005).This shows that the Court decisions are not always biased in favor of government policies and ideology. But these examples are few and far between. More often than not, since the Judge is nominated by the President, he or she tends to return the favor.In order to ensure as much transparency as possible in the process of appointing Supreme Court Judges, US regulations provide an additional level of approval, vis--vis, the Senate.

Although President can nominate the candidate, yet it has to be approved in the Senate before appointment can be made. There is a fair bit of debate on the role of Senate in advising on and consenting with the President's nomination. The history reveals that 'since the appointment of the first Justices in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 120 Supreme Court nominations out of 154 received.' (Rutkus 2005 p.4). Thus there are some controls to ensure that a review is carried out before the final appointment is confirmed.

Regardless of the nomination and appointment process of the Supreme Court Judges, the American citizens believe and trust that the Judge would evaluate all facets of the case before making his/ her judgment. This is how the rule of law can be upheld.Works CitedPurdum, S. T. 2005. Courts in transition: nominees and history; Presidents, Picking Justices, can have Backfires. The New York Times. Published 5 July 2005. Available from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9A03E4D61E3AF936A35754C0A9639C8B63 [Accessed 23 April 2009].Rutkus, S. D. 2005. Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate.

CSR Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress. Updated 6 July 2005. Available from: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf [Accessed 23 April 2009].