Politics of Confirming Federal Judges - Coursework Example

Politics of confirming federal judges In the run up to the presidential elections in the year 2008, the nomination and the confirmation of the lower federal courts came to a standstill. The process of judicial appointments process has become discordant without a reason. The so chanting Senate Republicans in the year 2009 deemed unacceptable to the republican conference despite the fact that they had a reserved right to filibuster any given judicial nominations done by President Barrack Obama. There has been a contentious battle for over eight years between republicans and the democrats over the treatment of the latter by President Georg W. Bush during nominations to the lower federal courts (Sarah &, Maltzman 93). The Republicans had warned that if they are not consulted on approval of the nominees from the states, their Republican conference will not incline their support to the nominee. The era of Bush was characterized intense divisive character in judicial selection, senatorial foot-dragging, prostrations and decline in confirmation rates. The nature of advice and consent was broken then and could spark protests by both the political parties. This article concentrates on the politics masking the judicial selection that focused on partisan, institutions and temporal forces that shape the fortune of the appointments done by the president to the federal trial and appellate courts. Considering the past experiences of bush administration that assess the patterns for over 60 years, it is evident that there were broad trends in the way judicial nomination was treated. There are pinpointed advancements that have fueled conflict over the makeup of the federal bench. Judiciary is an active partner that should be consulted in making public policy. The salience and the breadth of the docket of federal courts has broadened and hence the process of selecting the federal judges has attracted an increased attention. In American history the judicial selection has been litigious at various junctures, but rarely has it seemed harsh and dysfunctional than in the past. Vicious controversies like the battles experienced in Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court are emblematical of the extremely Washington’s divisive political climate. There have been scores of minimal conspicuous cases of confirmation held captive in the US senate along with high profile disputes. These have resulted to a decline in the confirmation rates and unparalleled delays in the process of filling the federal judgeship positions. Over few previous years, 10% the federal bench has not been occupied. The parties of the senate reach episodic agreements on the release of the hostages but the conflict over the judicial selection presses on. As at current, the case load of the federal judiciary is increasing to an extraordinary heavy level (Sarah &, Maltzman 189). The 2012 elections and the fiscal cliff After the long and the rancorous election season in US and the most expensive general election campaign in the history of the States, the US citizens went out to polls on November 6, 2012, to set the course of the nation for another incoming four years. After the end of the elections, the republicans retained the control of the House of Representatives and Democrats another time holding the senate and the presidency. Now the topic turned to the critical problem facing the state, the Fiscal cliff. A prior decision made by the 112th Congress translated to the beginning of an end to the Bush-era levy slash for all proceeds groups and across-the-board reductions in spending in January 2013 (Lawrence & Oppenheimer 125). With both the president and the Congress determined to offer a continued capacity of the representative institutions to meditate the great crises of their time, it could enable the government and the economy to fully surge out of the Great recession and rekindle hopes in the incumbent governance. We believe that the Congress, the President and the nation as a whole will find a way forward ahead the fiscal cliff and that a compromise will be discovered via skillful congressional negotiations and engaged presidential leadership on Capitol Hill. The two political parties have invested much in the in the success of the 113th Congress and the second term of the president, a success that will require solving the crisis at hand. The results of the elections have given the parties an incentive to act on immigration and seek a compassionate policy towards the individuals seeking citizenship to the nation they have termed as their home for long (Lawrence & Oppenheimer 211). The State has been hit hardly by major terrorist strike for over twelve years and wars in Iran and Afghanistan that has led to serious economic collapse along with politics of the brinksmanship that have compromised the efforts of the state to engage in legislative governance and hence it is too much to expect smooth run in state affairs for those four years. The ultimate goal is that the president and the Congress deliver the state safely and soundly to 2016, with a sense of perpetual crisis being replaced by calm and stability. Filibustering and parties in the modern senate During the 19th century, the House in fact had much more obstruction than the Senate. Eventually by the end of the century, the house is paralyzed by filibustering, the way many individuals are complaining about the senate. Most filibustering was going on in the past involved tactics that were easily measurable in Congressional Roll Call record. Legislators failed to vote as a strategy to break a quorum portraying they were not enough people to make decisions. That brought the chamber to a halt. In the late 20th Century, the concern of filibustering clamped down in the House and Senators inclined more to speaking rather than using dilatory methods and disappearing quorum (Gregory 82). A lot of fighting and conflicts were witnessed in the Congress between party leaders and the mass public, where the parties were highly hyper-developed. Every individual was obliged to proclaim loyalty to a single party which controlled nominations. In the senate the minority party can relatively easy exercise an opportunity to filibuster. Senators are more likely to filibuster if the costs of doing so are low. During elections the minority party won if there was precious time or when a large group was working together to delay things. The southerners were very effective in their movements in fighting civil rights and were properly prepared and ready to face the challenges. The informal right of the senators to obstruct is the central institution of the chamber. The senate did not collectively make a uniform choice to switch from a simple majority chamber that was full of intense filibusters to a chamber based on supermajority rule. During the 112th Congress, the reforms calls died just because the Republicans won the control of the House of Representatives in the previous year, making the House Republican the primary counterweight Senate democrats and President Obama. The biggest challenge is that for the 60-vote Senate to function, it will depend on the willingness of the senators to collaborate along party lines even if it will take into account electoral risks (Gregory 202). The majority party must be willing to offer the other party a reasonable number of amendments to the legislation and at the same time the latter should be reasonable in the number of votes they are demanding. New world of us senate There are campaigns that are supported by corporations for the most part. Back in 1950’s lobbying and the military industrial complex were getting started but now they have a weird hold on the way officials are elected. This in turn has affected the platforms on which the candidates run their campaigns. The candidates will appeal towards wide centrist ideas in order to lure as many voters as possible. Once they are elected, they look out for the individuals who financed them during their campaigns (Barbara 78). The fact that is evident by having only 16 women in the senate that shows there is still a bias existing against election of female officials in the senate. People wholly view women politicians with a certain angle of skepticism. People say that women are too emotional with an exemption of a few like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer. Females are treated like second class citizens in the arena of politics. Generally there is individualism and partisanship with the latter taking control over the senate and the house. Everybody wants to pull the party line in order to get the backing of the respective party. This is obvious in the latest debate over Republicans holding hostage the cut of Payroll tax. They couldn’t enforce any legislation that extends them until they have one that is in place to ensure pipeline (Barbara 129). There were some few Republicans who saw the issue in other way but they were reluctant to offer political sacrifice contributions and support so that they do what they think is right. Money has changed political climate over the past 60 years. Parties, members and campaign contribution in the house of contributions Few rules existed to regulate the finance used in campaigns during presidential and congress elections until late in the 20th century. Parties, candidates and outside interests were free to rise and redistribute money as it deemed fit for them. However, this era of unregulated spending came to an end in late 1970s when concerns political corruption and corporate influence led to the establishment of the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) in the year 1971 (William & Tracy 81). This formed initial broad campaign finance restructuring that set limits on the contributions of campaigns and instituted strict reporting requirements. The changes in campaign finance rules over the past decades have had significant allusions for the behavior of parties and the entire members of the congress. The initial motive of these laws was to mitigate the external influences and one of their welcomed impacts was to shape the dynamics inside the House of Representatives, more specifically between the MCs, their friends and their parties as well. Money flows in a systematic way in a predictable fashion from the parties and the members of the county assembly to other legislators. The capability of the committees of the party Hill and individual members to raise and redistribute funds has changed the mind setting of ambitious legislators (William & Tracy 192). Seniority has become relatively less important in the development of the hierarchy of a party centrally to the ability to accumulate contributions and constructing coalitions with fellow members that has seen the rise in party prominence. Works cited Barbara Sinclair. 1990. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate: Johns Hopkins University Press, History Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman. Advice & Dissent the Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2009. Print. Koger, Gregory. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2010. Print. Lawrence C. Dodd, Bruce I. Oppenheimer. The Congress at the precipice: The 2012 elections and the Fiscal Cliff: SAGE Publications, Political Science, 2012. Print. William Bernhard & Tracy Sulkin.. Parties, members and campaign contribution: University of Michigan Press, Political Science Read More