If an opening exists on the Supreme Court, who is responsible for nominating a new justice?
355006
The President nominates & the Senate confirms with a majority vote.
102993
Depends on the need?  Usually, it's an appointed position to someone with a legal experience, within a specific area of law.  If, however, an employment function in a government office warrants this need ... it will be automatic, based on a search of the applicants background.\nIn most cases; Justice of the Peace is normally offered to veterns, ex-police or, little old ladies holding a legal expertise (Law Clerks).
477764
According to the US Constitution there are no requirements to be a US Supreme Court Justice. Article 3 of the US Constitution states "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." States all vary with some requiring law school and a Bar Association while others require very little. \n\nIn Liberty,\nEric H. Smith\nwww.erichsmith.com
394209
check out Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution.  There you will find the powers laid out for you.  \n\nThe judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the Constitution.  They are not supposed to legislate, the legislative branch does that.  (Congress)  \n\nThe Supreme Court is able to interpret and change laws...to hand down decisions that become law, but are not statutes.  I realize some judges are elected...but many of them are appointed.  This serves to seperate them from elected officials who tend to make decisions that will get them reelected.  For example, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.  This is supposed to ensure that they will not make politically biased decisions in an effort to get votes.\n\n--The Supreme Court has a good website with lots of info.  \n\nThe judicial branch is seperate from the executive and the judicial branches---this was done purposely so that each branch could provide checks and balances on the others....
814833
Chief Justice John Roberts of the US.\n\nThe Supreme Court is highest court in the United States.  The Chief Justice presides over the Impeachment Cases conducted by the Senate.
141619
It set up the Supreme Court and the judiciary.
962593
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. The Circuit Judges Act of 1869 again set the number of judges at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since.\n\nPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in his proposed Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. His plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court, however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, rendering the President's effort moot (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court and promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice; upon his death in 1945, all but one of the Court's members were his appointees.
282261
The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
973503
The US President selects a nominee, who is then questioned by the US Senate Judicial Committee, which then votes whether or not to allow a Senate Floor vote on the nominee.\n\nIf the committee does allow for a Senate Floor vote, the Senators vote on the confirmation. If 51 Senators (or 50 Senators and a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President) vote in favor of confirmation, then the President's nominee is confirmed, and the nominee takes a seat in the US Supreme Court.
331695
Answer - who ever gets to it first. The sitting president can nominate immediately, but it must be put to a vote of the Senate. So unless the Senate holds an emergency session and confirms the nominee prior to the swearing in of the new president, it is extremely unlikely.\n\nIf the sitting president nominated someone, then the presidency changes, then the new president can withdraw the nominee. Technically, the office of the president makes the nomination, not the person president. So, a nominee could survive changing presidents. It is much more likely that they would be withdrawn.\n\nThe most probable scenario is that the sitting president will simply let the opportunity pass, as it would do him no good to try to nominate someone so close to the transfer of the presidency. In addition, senators could choose to decide to filibuster the nominee, thus delaying the confirming vote until after the new president assumes the office.
251861
The Supreme Court acts as the highest level of appelate courts in the United States.  They have the final say in any case that they choose to hear.\n\nAlso, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain types of cases involving certain kinds of Conctitutional issues and disputes between states.\n\nSupreme Court justices are appointed for life.  Senators are elected to 6 year terms.  Senators offices are divided into 3 classes, appropriately named Class I, Class II and Class III.  Every even numbered year, one of the classes is up for re-election.\n\nSo this year (2006 in case you're not paying attention)  one class (I think it's class III) will be elected.  In 2008, the next class is elected, and so on.\n\nThe elections that occur between Presidential elections (2006 for example) are referred to as Mid-Term elections, and usually get less attention, and therefore, more incumbant re-elections.
762823
I believe so.   But the U.S. Supreme Court believes otherwise.  So, who you gonna listen to?
40225
I must commend you on one of the most thoughtful (and complex) questions I have had the pleasure to read--and try to understand--since I began at Yahoo! Answers.\n\nI see the logic of the argument you are offering.  It definitely gets into the whole "separation of powers" issue.  What IS Congress' role in confiming members of the judiciary?\n\nUnfortunately, there is always going to be a political element in presidential appointments.  And with the legislative arm charged with signing off on most of those appointments, the political factor increases dramatically.\n\nIn this case, it appears many people, in either party, believe the judges appointed by President Bush could or would have a particular agenda--whether or not that was actually the truth.  It certainly wasn't spelled out by the president, but supporters and detractors both strongly felt it was certainly implied.\n\nDoes this judge (Alito) or have any judges nominated by Bush or any other president truly have or had predetermined opinions on issues the court may address?  The altruist in me says, "No!  These judges have sworn to apply the law, and nothing but the law, to the decisions they hand down".  But the politician in me says, "Bush and his supporters have been salivating for years to stack the court with conservatives to challenge Roe v. Wade.  How can he not try and make that happen?"\n\nSo where does this leave Congress?  Forced to judge a judge by determining, right or wrong, if they will in fact use only the law in arriving in their rulings.  That they either have no personal stake in a decision or wouldn't allow it to influence them.  It leads to some strange and unusual exchanges between those questioning and answering.\n\nAnd when you factor in the partisanship inherent in any legislative process, it can and has gotten downright ugly.  Hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas immediately come to mind; I know there are many others.\n\nIn short, this is an imperfect system that must place an imperfect individual (in that they cannot be TRULY impartial) into a position that affects our nations' history.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's held up as well as it has over the years.\n\nI hope I've fairly addressed your question.  Thanks again for making me put on my thinking cap.  I need that every once in a while.
774314
Looking at the makeup of the Supreme Court, I think it was to ensure that the Chief Justice would be a Republican appointee for a long time.  All of the other are either Democratic appointees (Breyer, Ginsburg), rather liberal (Souter, Kennedy, Stevens) or would have difficulty getting approved by the Senate as Chief (Thomas).  That leaves Scalia, but he was almost 70 at the time, and likely could not be counted on to stay on the court for more than 5-10 years.  Roberts, on the other hand, was a spry 50 years old and thus will likely lead the court for at least 20 years.
697684
The power to confirm appointments of US Supreme Court Judges by the President.  And my reading of the constitution (Articles I, II & III) and old law classes indicate that the the US Supreme court has no check on this power....as it would allow the court, in effect, to select their own members.\n\nSo much for 100% of the checks and balances theory.  If someone else can cite differently I would appreciate the information.
468217
Amendment XXV, Article 2:  "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress."
367408
Clause 2 of the 25th amendment:\n\n"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."\n\nThis is the closest mention of anything in the Constitution.  I would assume that if he hasn't been inaugurated yet, the President-elect would have more leniency in picking his next VP with no vote by Congress.