Supreme Court Appointments Are Always Controversia

401 Words2 Pages
'Supreme Court appointments are always controversial' discuss There are nearly always arguments over whether an appointment to the Supreme Court was correct or not. However, we can see that the court is pretty balanced between conservatives and liberals. Some might say that Supreme Court appointments are controversial simply because of the nature of them - they are political appointments. Some may also say that these appointments must be controversial, because a Supreme Court appointment - is for life, and they are also granted the power of judicial review. Therefore if there is no debate over a nomination - surely there must be something wrong, as it would be extremely hard to have a 'perfect' appointment per se. Others may say that the controversy of the appointment really depends on which seat is up for grabs. Judicial nominations are considered extremely important - firstly because they occur infrequently, secondly, the appointments are for life, thirdly, there are only nine members of the Supreme Court, so therefore In appointing a justice, a president is replacing one ninth of the court membership and lastly because of the power of judicial review as I said earlier. One might say that Supreme Court appointments are controversial because of the amount of power which is vested in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds the power of judicial review over both the executive and the legislature. The power of judicial review is the power of the judiciary to declare acts of Congress and the executive unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This therefore means that the Supreme Court can strike down bills. We saw this recently in 1998 with the Clinton v. New York City, it declared the Line Item Veto act unconstitutional. Therefore, we can see simply by the powers held by the Supreme Court that appointments have to be controversial, in order to ensure
Open Document