Politics Around Supreme Court Appointees

Emily Funk

Rhetoric Around Supreme Court Appointees

COMM 4320

10/2/2016

 

Party Influence of Appointees

Historically the rhetoric surrounding Supreme Court Appointees has been focused on candidates’ beliefs and how they impact future lawmaking in the United States of America. This candidate is a Liberal or Conservative, so while seated they will impact laws depending on what their political views are. Following the death of Justice Scalia, the focus has shifted from the candidates’ political beliefs to the timing and nature of the candidate’s appointment.screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-10-35-43-pm

Judge Merrick Garland 

Most recently, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland because he believed the focus would be on Garland’s political leanings. Obama chose Garland because he was viewed centrist, and figured Republicans would be more open to his nominations. Despite expectations, the Republican party has refused to hold a hearing for Garland for the past 6-10 months. Instead they have chosen to wait to appoint anyone until after the 2016 election in hopes that Donald Trump will win and appoint someone more favorable from their point of view. By gambling for Trump the party was in high hopes that they would have a more favorable candidate to review.

Based upon this evidence, it has been demonstrated that currently the most important part of elections tends to be based upon timing.

Screen Shot 2016-10-02 at 10.39.18 PM.png

200 Days!– Lame Duck?

Based upon the timeline above, it is evident that the appointment of Judge Merrick Garland has not been reviewed for over 200 days, whereas the average timeline for appointees is approximately 90 days. The hearings for other candidates are based upon the political affiliation of the President, as well as the party that is in charge of the House and Senate at the time of nomination. Currently Republicans are in charge of the House and the Senate. Instead of being willing to review Garland and his centrist views, they are gambling that a more conservative candidate may emerge following the presidential election. The contentious presidency of Barack Obama has helped lead to this unique circumstance, but his suggestion of Garland was generally seen as a bipartisan move. The Republicans have argued that since Barack Obama is approaching his exit of office, he is a ‘lame duck’ and should not be eligible to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. While the legal precedents for this situation vary, the partisan rhetoric surrounding Garland’s review (much less his possible appointment) reflects the currently deep divide between Democrats and Republicans leading up to the November elections.

One thought on “Politics Around Supreme Court Appointees

  1. Your point about how Barack Obama is a lame duck, displayed a lot to me that I had not thought about before. I do agree that he shouldn’t be able to pick the new Supreme Court Justice because the Justice should be chosen by the next President. I think that this makes the most sense because the Supreme Court Appointee is supposed to help aid the President in making decisions, and the current Presidential candidates in this election have very different views and agendas on what’s important as compared to President Obama. I do also agree with your point about how timing is the most important thing during this election. In completing research for my own blog post, I found that the new Supreme Court Justice is an issue up for debate in this current election but it still doesn’t rank as a topic of high importance in voter’s minds. Overall, great post!

Comments are closed.