Supreme Court Nominations

During the past few decades the judicial nomination and approval process for the Supreme Court has become increasingly political.  Through the use of the “advise and consent” clause, senators’ influence over the Supreme Court is significant.  The Supreme Court’s decisions frequently reflect the justices’ political affiliations.

The intent of “advise and consent” is to provide citizens the chance to veto a Supreme Court nominee through their senator. This advise and consent clause limits presidential power because the president needs “two thirds of the Senators present” (2.2.2) concurrence to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court.  This is important because if the President’s party is not the same as the Senate’s majority, a new justice may not be elected until after the next presidential or senatorial election. 

The process of appointing new judges has become a political tool to further one party’s agenda rather than to do what is best for the country.  For example, during the second Bush presidency, Judges Samuel Alito and John Roberts were elected to positions previously held by centrist Judge Sandra O’Conner and conservative Judge William Rehnquist.  With Alito and Roberts the Supreme Court became an ideological, far right wing Court that votes along party lines for each decision.  With Roberts on the Supreme Court, a much more conservative view was taken on any decision involving abortion or civil rights.

The litmus test is important because it allows senators to know how a nominee would vote on a topic.  Litmus tests may be useful, but only to an extent.  The job of the Supreme Court is to resolve cases primarily “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States” (3.2.1).  In addition, each decision is precedent for all federal courts and legally binding in similar factual situations.