Why do you think Supreme Court justices and other federal judges are appointed by the president?
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.
127388
Judge Alito is an originalist so he believes his job is to inturpret the constitution, not legislate. Bush appointed him because of that, not because he's conservative. But it so happens that the constitution is, on the most part, a conservative document. I believe Alito is the perfect choice. He will make decisions based on the laws that congress passes. If we disagree with those laws, we need to elect congressmen to change them. We shouldn't expect the judicial branch to do the job of the legislative branch.
1186500
On all issues of law the final arbiter in the United States is the Supreme Court.  That body in the USA's tricameral system of government has frequently overruled the executive and/or legislative branches of government as to interpretations of existing law.  This in no way should lead one to make such statements as "the President is ignoring the constitution."  It merely demonstrates that a reading  of existing law has been more narrowly defined by the court as interpreted vis-a-vis the constitution and that the system of checks and balances work.
889739
The President has a right to chose whoever he wants as a member in his cabinet.\n\nYour elected official is your voice, so to speak. Congress has to approve the replacement. They will bring him in & question him, just as they do the Supreme Court Justices, and make their decisions from there.\n\nAnytime that you do not approve of your Senators or Representatives in Congress, in your state, contact them & voice your complaint. I do it all the time & everyone should take it upon themselves to be more active in voicing their opinions to their state representatives. When our elected officials figure it out that "someone" is watching every action they take, maybe they will be more apt to listen to us BEFORE we vote them out of office.  Ya think?\n\nIn Iowa, I go to Iowa Congress. There you will find their email address, add it to your list of "favorites" & email them often. Try it....you'll like it. Kind of makes you feel like your voice counts. Because it does!!
751936
But for that power being exercised by the courts, we would not have known the foul play in the AP case of pardon. Our Constitution has envisaged a system of checks and balances. Judicial Review is a must for review all the administrative actions of the President and the Governors. There must be a system to check and control even the Judges of the SC and High Courts.
74275
"The 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. 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. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Court-packing Bill); 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 recognized 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. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course to accommodate the President's desires (see The switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices."\n\nI'm not sure where the majority rule came about, but I'm sure it's an outgrowth of having an odd number of justices.
165805
Supreme Court justices are appointed to the high court for their personal views. Are they pro-life or not? Are they strict constructionalists? Where do they stand on the separation between church and state, between the federal gov't and the states.\n\nWhy do you think Supreme Court appointments were a major issue during the last presidential election?  Because a justice's personal views MATTER -- and this isn't something that became an issue in the last 8 years.  It's always been an issue since Marberry v. Madison.
753510
1.) President makes the appointment.\n2.) The Senate must confirm the appointment by majority vote.\n\nFrom Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:\n"...and he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... Judges of the supreme Court..."
968420
Agreed. I believe that's what voters are for. I mean, think about it: if the Supreme Court was appointed by his daddy, who do you think they'd give (give being the key word) the presidency to? Even if it took longer, wouldn't it've been a better idea if the whole country just re-voted?
577872
Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, like every other Administration cabinet position.\nThe Nominee isn't required to be an attorney.
1138305
It created the "inferior" courts authorized in Article III of the Constitution.\n\nIt created 13 federal District Courts, and three appellate Circuits. It also determined the number of Justices on the supreme court, and established appellate review of circuit court decisions.
798307
When you break down the actual power that is instilled in each branch, the answer is fairly obvious.\n\nIt seems as if the the folks who have answered think that it is clearly the Judicial Branch, but they couldn't be more wrong.  If anything, the Judicial Branch has the least amount of authority in the federal government. The Supreme Court, in fact, has only implied power. The High Court acquired the ability to deem a law unconstitutional via one of their own rulings in 1803 (Marbury vs, Madison); nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it authorize the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court can only rule on cases brought before them by parties with a standing concern (i.e., individuals who are being directly and immediately affected by the law). If the case never reaches their courtroom, all the Supreme Court can do is sit idley by and watch from the sidelines. As far as the preconception that a Court ruling not being able to be overturned, that's not entirely accurate. The Congress, from time to time, can regulate and make exceptions to Supreme Court decisions, in particular where it pertains to the Court's appellate jurisdiction.\n\nYou would have to list the the Executive Branch as a pretender as well, considering that The Congress can supercede nearly every decision that the President can make. His veto powered is neutered by the fact that Congress can simply override and institute any law that the President strikes down, Presidential appointments are subject to approval by both Houses, and his job security is determined largley at their discretion.\n\nThe Legislative Branch, without a doubt, holds all the cards in this discussion.They write our laws, levy our taxes, declare our wars, confirm our Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet Officials, decide how the federal money is spent, amongst a plothera of other actionable powers. In addition to their great many capabilities, as it concerns this discussion, Congress has the authority to impeach and dismiss the occupants of the other 2 branches. This, above all else, makes the Legislative Branch, undoubtedly, the most powerful of the three.
822083
I'm trying to do this by memory, so here goes. ........\n\n"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must conceive that the judiciary, from the nature of its power, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no influence over either the strength or wealth of a society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive department even for the efficacy of its judgments."\n\nI hope I got that right.\n\nIn terms of REstating Hamilton, instead of just quoting him, I'll explain that Hamilton meant that the judiciary has the weakest power of the three branches of government. The judiciary is weakest because it cannot make the other two branches do anything. The judges merely hand down "judgments," which do not have the force of law unless the executive branch chooses to obey the judiciary, and the executive branch doesn't have to do so. Even when Congress has made a law that the judiciary subsequently says is unconstitutional, the executive can choose to continue enforcing that law, effectively thumbing its nose at the judiciary.
1030893
Hight courts have jurisdiction over a State in India. The Judges of the High Courts in India are appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and Governor of the State.
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.
157429
ALL supreme court nominees are controversial, because a president nominates based on their political beliefs, then the nomination goes in front of a two-party legislature.  One party will be opposed and one will be for, unless the nominee sits squarely in the middle.  Mr. Alito leaned right, so the left wing was unhappy that he was nominated.
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.