Supreme Court Justices

In the past, the judiciary was very different from the modern judicial branch. Specifically, the nomination process has been changing. Whether these changes are for better or for worse are an important question to answer. By answering this question we can explore the nomination process and understand the benefits and costs of the modern nomination process. 


In the past, simply put, judicial nomination was a more political process. Individuals would come from other political branches and be placed by the president and later approved by Congress. The latter part of the process has stood the same but the former has changed. Instead of having politically experienced judicial nominees, this process has evolved to get rid of the public, political aspect of the candidates. Nixon was the first president to set precedent in this area. He wanted his judicial appointees to be "professional" judiciaries. By "professional," Nixon wanted his judges to be career judges. Judges who worked their way up the ranks in the federal court system. The courts lower than the Supreme Court would be training grounds or testing grounds for future Supreme Court justices. So, most of the new justices would be pulled from the lower courts. Furthermore, justices are expected to be more apolitical now. When Bush nominated Elena Kagan, a new trend was highlighted. Kagan didn't have many published political opinions on controversial supreme court rulings. Nobody knew how she felt about some modern issues. The basis behind this is that there won't be any reason (because there is nothing published) for critics to expel the candidate. Some argue this is a good thing but others argue apolitical justices aren't good for our court system.


In my opinion, I am happy with the way the judicial nomination process has evolved. The professional aspect of the justices is very important. I feel like in order to be a judge in the Supreme Court, you need to have experience in the field. We need people who are familiar with the law, have proven that they can make educated decisions on the basis of law, and aren't afraid to make a ruling and stick behind it. Furthermore, the justices shouldn't have much of a published opinion when nominated. I don't like the reasoning for this, which i explained in the paragraph above, but I have my own reasoning. The president should be separated form the judiciary. There should be a separation of powers. However, when we know and the president knows how the justices will vote on certain issues, it is somewhat breaching the separation of powers. If the president can choose a justice that will go along with his ideology, he is breaking the lines of separation between the executive and the judiciary. I know these two ideas are conflicting. It would be hard to find an experienced judge who doesn't publish his opinion, because his opinion is always published through his court's ruling, but there needs to be a balance.


We are getting the caliber of justices we need, because of the precedent of federal judicial experience. Where else are you going to get a better judge of federal law than from the people already making decisions based on federal law? I feel like this is a good precedent and a professional precedent. People shouldn't be able to have Supreme Court Justice as the first job they had where they had to make judicial decisions. 


Furthermore, the justices have been generalized as being apolitical. In theory, this would be a good practice, but in reality it is too difficult to have a justice be apolitical. The justices shouldn't be looked at as apolitical, if we want them to make informed decisions. Politics is a part of everyday life, and justices shouldn't be removed from this part of life. If we try to take them away from politics, you are further removing them from the American people. Their decisions won't be as reflective of intentions of the law, if they get too far from the people. However, a justice should be able to try to put their political ideology beside them and make decisions based on the law and its intentions. Therefore, I agree with objectivity in the judiciary when they start to practice, but in reality it is too difficult to actually nominate a justice who is apolitical. This is a confusing idea, but it will make more sense after the understanding my next paragraph. The justice being nominated should be objective once they assume their new position, but when trying to nominate an apolitical justice, its too difficult to find someone who meets the criteria.


The president knows the justices have political underlinings and ideology, and he is able to take advantage of that. Political game theory, as explained in Morris's The American Presidency, suggests that the president does take political underlinings into account when choosing a justice. In my opinion, the president should promote an objective judiciary, instead of packing his court with justices who support his ideology. This goes back to the idea of separation of powers. If the president could pack the courts to support his ideology and programs, then how separate is the judiciary really from the executive? Luckily, even though presidents try to play a political and strategic game, this usually proves ineffective. When the appointed justices start their job, I feel like they stray away from the politics. For example, many justices have still go against the president even though he appointed them. Presidents have their appointees rule against them often. For example, Nixon had many of his appointees rule against him in Nixon vs. US, even though he had given them their job. So, even though the president tries to pack the court strategically, he is often appointing justices who are objective and rule based on law rather than their political ideology (even though their political ideology does exist). Its difficult to remove yourself from political ideology, but its important to be an objective ruler once you assume the position of Supreme Court Justice. As long as the judicial decisions aren't influenced (in any way) by the executive, then we have a fair and justifiable separation of powers.  So, even though there are some political underlinings we need justices who will make objective decisions and not take their political ideology into their court room decisions.