the president can appoint federal judges with the approval of what??
813956
Yes, the Senate.  The constitutional says the executive appoints with the "advice and consent" of the senate.  In the good 'ol days the Senate was not popularly elected but was appointed by the state legislatures (2 from each state--sort of like the House of Lords in the English system).  In any event the idea was to better insulate the judiciary from the will of the "masses" because the Founding Fathers knew that the courts would be called upon to protect the interests of minority groups and to make unpopular decisions.  They were smart guys.
609749
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
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.
838942
The judge will decide.\n\nCoach
238656
Our Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President.  They go through confirmation hearings in Congress and are approved by a vote of the Senate.  They are appointed for life or until their voluntary retirement as that of Sandra Day O'Connor within the past couple of months.
92
There are nine seats on the United States Supreme Court. You must be nominated by the President of the United States, and confirmed by a majority in the U.S. Senate. Justices are appointed for life (except in cases of retirement or impeachment).\nIt is not necessary for that person to have experience as a judge (George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?ei=UTF-8&fl=0&fr=slv5-&p=harriet+miers+%22supreme+court%22<br />\nis not the first time a non-judge has been nominated), just a solid legal mind. Generally when a President chooses a nominee, he will look for someone whose ideals and worldview match his own. Gerald Ford famously did not make an idealogical choice when he appointed John Paul Stevens (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c11_f.html) <br />\nand in subsequent years was rather disappointed at some of Stevens' decisions. \nThere is a lot more information at the official Supreme Court site: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
568985
The Judaical Branch was set up specifically to monitor the activities of the Executive Branch. And "No" the court should not monitor everything that the President says. The President has an executive counsel for that.\n\n"The Office of Legal Counsel assists the Attorney General in his function as legal adviser to the President and all the executive branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the executive branch, and offices within the Department of Justice. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality."
863484
The President, subject to ratification by the Senate.
1046036
The courts interpret law. They have no authority to hear matters that do not involve a current actual controversy between adverse parties. That's called "standing".\n\nCongress can pass any laws it wants, prospectively and proactively, within Constitutional limits. The courts can only interpret law and interpret the Constitution, and can only do so within the bounds of a particular case. Congress can also impeach a judge for failing to follow the rules.\n\nThe Executive appoints judges and justices. Thus, the president determines who gets on the bench. \n\nThose are the checks and balances. The executive appoints justices. Congress passes laws, which the courts can interpret. And Congress can impeach justices.
871260
The US is a federation, so there are 3 branches of gov't for each state and 3 levels for the federal (united) gov't in Washington DC.  The judicial branch is the Courts.  There are 3 levels of courts in every state and 3 levels for the federal courts.  The trial court, the appeals court, and the court of last resort.  Next, is the legislative branch.  Every state and the federal gov't all have 2 chambers, the house and the senate.  Next is the executive.  They do the administration and at the state levels they are called the "Governor," and his appointees, and at the federal level it is called the "President," and his appointees.  Good luck, Shay!
270696
It is called elections it is where you vote for President of someone whose ideology you favor and he or she will nominate people to the supreme court whose views you would share.\n\nIts a constitutional process, again, called elections followed by a nomination, and the Senate advises and consents.
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.
500329
Both the executive and legislative branches can make laws; but its the legislative branch's primary function. The judiciary branch is supposed to apply the law..... but they seem to be creating it these days. :(\n\nEver heard of the Executive Order? The president's legislative ability is limited, but he has it nonetheless.
121437
The president picks them and they're confirmed by the Senate
950964
The Justices are nominated by the President and then must be approved by the Senate.
963861
Greg's answer is a good one. :) \n\nI would also add that since judges are put into place by the president and the legislature, they are (unlike politicians) not beholden to special interest groups or lobbyists, and they are not dependant on the people for their job. Because they are free of restrictions, they can uphold the constitution and rule of law without worrying for the safety of their jobs. This helps to further assure "liberty and justice for all". \n\nBTW, the president and legislature only put into place SUPREME COURT justices... Lower courts ARE sometimes elected by the people, depending on the state in which you live.
458957
you need to get the judge's internal operating procedures and or your states code or statutes of civil procedure\n\nthe federal judges guidelines are in the federal code of civil procedure\n\nif you want something particular to your state, i would start out with your state's supreme court's website, many of them have these documents online now\n\nfinally, www.findlaw.com has an extensive collection of both federal and state law resources\n\ngood luck