What's the rationale in having the POTUS nominate Supreme Court justices?

[fuzzybabybunny]

I've never quite understood why the founders decided to stipulate that the POTUS needs to be the one to nominate lifetime SC justices and then have the upper house of Congress confirm them. What was their logic?



Moved from OT

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent

 

[zerocool84]

Who knows but we have a separate area for that. I purposely don't go into P&N for a reason.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You have a better idea?

 

[IronWing]

The idea was to spread power around and prevent court packing by a President or Congress.

 

[Pens1566]

Its the administrative branch check/balance on the judicial.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I'll offer the idea that having the POTUS appoint new members of the SCOTUS is a way to produce a counter balance across presidents. That is, the office of the president tends to change hands every 8 or so years with the other party taking office so having the SCOTUS balance defined by his/her predecessor is a way to limit the power of a new president. Then, as he/she appoints new members of the SCOTUS and the balance moves in that direction the next president will be limited.

My thought anyway...



Brian

 

[shady28]

I've never quite understood why the founders decided to stipulate that the POTUS needs to be the one to nominate lifetime SC justices and then have the upper house of Congress confirm them. What was their logic?



Moved from OT

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent

Part of logic was that the people are fickle, they did not want SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution differently every 4 years or so on transient political fads since the Constitution is not seen as something that changes easily or frequently.

Also by being a lifetime position, the SCOTUS is beholden to no political faction (in theory). Thus they are less likely to be swayed by politics, and more likely to interpret it without bias.

I don't think the framers of the constitution would have liked the idea of one POTUS or one Congress appointing more than one or two judges. They probably never thought about the concept of having a lot of career 30-year Congressmen either.

Edit: The reason POTUS selects and Congress confirms is checks and balances. If the POTUS wants to elect a bunch of fascists who will dismantle the constitution, they can't do it on their own.

 

[Indus]

I've never quite understood why the founders decided to stipulate that the POTUS needs to be the one to nominate lifetime SC justices and then have the upper house of Congress confirm them. What was their logic?



Moved from OT

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent

There was never any logic to the constitution.. it was a compromise.

Why on earth would you want to make the person who loses the election the Vice President?

But we keep trying to make it a more perfect union.. all you need is 38 states to agree on something.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll offer the idea that having the POTUS appoint new members of the SCOTUS is a way to produce a counter balance across presidents. That is, the office of the president tends to change hands every 8 or so years with the other party taking office so having the SCOTUS balance defined by his/her predecessor is a way to limit the power of a new president. Then, as he/she appoints new members of the SCOTUS and the balance moves in that direction the next president will be limited.

My thought anyway...



Brian

It doesn't just limit the President but Congress as well. Continuity in the Judiciary prevents us from charging off in various directions on the basis of political whim & fashion. That's both good and bad, considering that the SCOTUS enabled 100 years of Jim Crow.

 

[dullard]

Not many people are answering the actual question.

The president nominates and the senate advises and consents. This spreads out the power from any one person or one group. It is part of the checks and balances built into the constitution to stop many of the problems that the founders saw in other governments.

Only congress can vote for laws. The president can't, the supreme court can't. Thus, when it comes to laws, congress gets to control it (only bills approved by congress will ever become laws). But, congress can't just force laws through; the president must also approve (terrible congressional ideas can be vetoed). But if you have a crappy president, an overwhelming majority of congress can override that crappy president. Finally, if a truly bad idea gets through both, the supreme court can override it all. In this situation, the congress has the power, but the other branches can override them.

Only the president can nominate a supreme court justice. It is the reverse of the case above--the president gets to control it (only candidates that the president wants will ever become supreme court justices). But if the president chooses a really bad candidate, the senate can advise against that candidate. And if the senate and president do so illegally, the supreme court can override them. In this situation, the president has the power, but the other branches can override them.

The supreme court has the final say in all things, not the congress and not the president. But to prevent too much power gathering in the supreme court, they can't nominate themselves. The power to do that comes from the other branches. In this situation, the supreme court has the power, but the other branches can eventually replace them.

In all of the cases that I listed, a different one of the three branches has the power, but never absolute power.

 

[TheGardener]

Not many people are answering the actual question.

I thought you were going to answer the question, but you decided to answer the How, not the Why, as the OP asked. So I'll give it a shot.

It has to do with the intention of a separation of powers. Having a president who appoints judges and requiring 2/3rds of the senators to concur, was a compromise in writing the Constitution. Some the framers of the Constitution did not want a powerful President, having broken away from England and King George during the Revolutionary War. Others like Hamilton are said to have wanted a monarchy, rather than this experimental representative government.

A chief executive was certainly needed, but the Constitution was designed to hamstring the president, which is why Congress was designed to have a critical role. Washington and Adams pretty much played by the set rules.

But Jefferson, who pushed in the Constitution for that weak president, went off script when he got elected to that office. He created the Executive Order, when he thought it necessary to create a navy to counter England's aggression. Congress was against it, or at least Jefferson feared they'd turn him down. From then on presidents have used executive orders to go around Congress, when deemed necessary. If the framers wanted the president to have all this power, there would never have been a requirement for the senate to approve judicial appointments.

 

[Jhhnn]

I thought you were going to answer the question, but you decided to answer the How, not the Why, as the OP asked. So I'll give it a shot.

It has to do with the intention of a separation of powers. Having a president who appoints judges and requiring 2/3rds of the senators to concur, was a compromise in writing the Constitution. Some the framers of the Constitution did not want a powerful President, having broken away from England and King George during the Revolutionary War. Others like Hamilton are said to have wanted a monarchy, rather than this experimental representative government.

A chief executive was certainly needed, but the Constitution was designed to hamstring the president, which is why Congress was designed to have a critical role. Washington and Adams pretty much played by the set rules.

But Jefferson, who pushed in the Constitution for that weak president, went off script when he got elected to that office. He created the Executive Order, when he thought it necessary to create a navy to counter England's aggression. Congress was against it, or at least Jefferson feared they'd turn him down. From then on presidents have used executive orders to go around Congress, when deemed necessary. If the framers wanted the president to have all this power, there would never have been a requirement for the senate to approve judicial appointments.

First off, the Constitution does not require a 2/3 majority. Senate rules required a 2/3 majority to overcome a much later development, the filibuster, an exploitation of Senate rules. That was reduced to 60 votes but the actual confirmation vote never required more than a simple majority.

Executive orders have nothing to do with it.

The selection of Justices depends on random acts- resignation or death of a Justice. In that, it tends to balance out over long periods of time. OTOH, Repub presidents nominated 12 out of 16 Justices from Nixon forward thus skewing the court in their ideological direction. Should Obama get 3 and Clinton get 3 the count would stand at Dems 10 & Repubs 12 out of the last 22. Unlike Congress, particularly the HOR, the SCOTUS changes only slowly, as intended.

Should that happen, Repubs will lose that bulwark to their ideology of atavism with 6 out of 9 sitting Justices being Dem nominees. Modern Repubs have always been more lucky than good so it's inevitable that would turn against them.