Presidents use their appointees to cement their legacy, trying to choose individuals who share their ideology. I know that has become a dirty world in how the government uses to interpret the law, but right now, there is a very bright line separating conservative and progressive issues. One should nominate someone who believes in the same causes he or she does. Choosing a nominee who is not, already a judge has the advantage of giving less fodder to the opposition, because she has no opinions available for scrutiny. On the other hand, she could turn out to be something other than the president expected.
For example in 2010, President Obama appointed Elena Kagan to be a justice of the Supreme Court. For democrats this was a brilliant nomination as Kagan herself is a democrat. Because of the life tenure granted to justices, many of the time justices outlive the presidents time in office. The Supreme Court is seen as political due to this, the appointment of justices’ are really in favour of the president’s political interest as they are somewhat of a legacy of the President who appoints them, to ensure his political ideology remains somewhere in the US system. The US Supreme Court is also seen as a political institution rather than a judicial one because of the power of the court through judicial review.
These two parties got into many debates about who had the better ideas for the government and say that which party should be dominant or to have total power in the government. In Document B, Washington in his farewell address states that the “domination of one faction over another… is itself a frightful despotism…”.Washington states that if one party is in command then the United States will become unified and most likely get into a civil war. Washington warned of the danger of political parties,
Supporters of the constitution countered these arguments by adding some safeguards in some cases and also by thoroughly explaining the limited powers that the leader and government would have and the necessity for a strong central government. The constitution called for one executive leader, the President, who many thought would resemble a dictator, and America would be just like it was during colonial times. The framers of the Constitution knew that there needed to be a centralized government with a single executive leader to lead the country. However, some people like Patrick Henry, feared that a president would lead to “absolute despotism” and that there were actually more checks and balances in the British system of kings and lords (Doc. A).
This is criticised because the current political party in power have the ability to make their own decisions for the UK before listening to what the people want. This then becomes a problem because they may make changes that the majority of the population will not agree with. However, near to the next election they may decide to listen to people as they want them to vote for them (the current political party in power) during the next election. Secondly, the UK has a hereditary monarchy and a house of lords, both which are not elected. This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy.
This power certainly erodes the idea of ‘first among equals’. However, it must be noted that cabinet could have taken this decision as a whole, though it is unlikely. Further the Prime Minister decides the policy of the cabinet and thus the government, the party and the country. Such power, is argues, is too much for one person to comprehend and bear. The Prime Minister as the leader of his political party is subject to the parties support and his ability to whip his majority in the House of Commons to pass his policies and legislation into law.
Indecisive people can pass on their responsibilities and “pass the buck,” and advisory people can propose their concepts and lobby for acceptance, but the President can ultimately turn to nobody else. Presidents must make the hard decisions. It is a heavy mantle to bear on those presidential shoulders. It is lonely at the top. President Johnson’s “wise men” possessed depth in their areas of expertise beyond that of the President, who was a master mover of legislation to accomplish domestic social programs but very much out of his league in military matters and international relations.
When a presidential election occurs it is the Electoral College’s votes that truly pick the next president. Although the representative does have the same views as the popular opinion of the state representatives can vote how they choose. Hence, Bush was reelected. Source: howstuffworks.com 6. Civil Liberties: Basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the constitution.
And, this creates room for worry, he fears they would use their powers to ensure federal supremacy over states. Brutus (1788) asserted that “the judicial power of the united states would lean strongly in favor of the general government and give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favor an extension of its jurisdiction” (p.312). Thus, eventually leading to “the destruction, of that of the respective states” (p.315). Moreover, Brutus (1788) felt that the immeasurable extent of judicial powers creates room for abuse of power especially since “they are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries” (p.
Lastly appointment judges is that the president choses judges from his following appointment lists. One power the president can control is veto laws. Veto laws is something the president has to do to delay a bill from becoming the law. This is a really important power because the president has to think wisely if he wants to pass a law. It doesn’t just go straight to the president there are stages