INTRODUCTION
The three subject areas, which we have selected for this academic exercise are 1) the foundation of the American Constitution, 2) The Federal Court System (especially in the context of the Supreme Court), and 3) Judicial Review. These three subject areas, which we have selected, strongly influence the functioning of the government but also the state. When government and state institutions function efficiently, socio-political and socioeconomic progress occurs.
DISCUSSION OF THREE SUBJECT AREAS
The American Constitution
The American Constitution is based on the principle of the separation of powers, which divides the government in three; 1) The Executive, 2) The Congress and 3) Supreme Court. All three branches have certain powers, and all three branches of government keep a check on each other. The American Constitution also defined the rights of the general public and responsibilities of government and government institutions (Clinton, Bertelli and Grose).
The President of the United States of America functions as the head of state and represents the United States foreign policy; he also possesses complete power over the U.S armed forces and Intelligence agencies. The president can carry outlaws as the leader of the executive division. The president and the Vice-president of the United States are to be elected by the people to complete a four-year term unless the Congress impeaches him. The role of the Congress is to debate whether a law should be amended or not. Once the Congress approves the law, it is then signed or disapproved by the President of the United States. If the president rejects a bill, the Congress can override it to keep the balance of the government in check (Farhang).
The Federal Court System
The Federal Court System has three tiers; 1) District, 2) U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and 3) U.S. Supreme Court. It is imperative to acknowledge that each court has special powers and each court serves a particular cause. For instance, the United States’ Supreme Court’s major obligation is to review the law passed by the Congress and to hear final appeals. Also, the apex court also has the power to interpret the clauses of the American Constitution. This unique power, given by the American Constitution, makes the appointment of federal judges a very sensitive subject (Barrett).
Judicial Review
Judicial Review is the special power of the Supreme Court, given by the American Constitution, which allows it to examine the actions that are taken by the legislative branch of the government that is the Congress. Also, the Supreme Court also examines the executive orders, which are issued by the president, especially when there is a lack of support for the President’s decision in Congress.
Each citizen of the United States has an entitlement to a fair trial under Article 3 before an accomplished judge. Article 3 allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret and evaluate the United States Legislations and Laws. If contrasted with the other branches of the U.S constitution, the judicial branch ranks the lowest in power. The third division of the U.S constitution is made up of the Judiciary. The apex judiciary, which consists of federal courts, not only interprets the law, but also examines the constitutionality of laws passed by the Congress and the executive orders issued by the President. Therefore, the appointment of federal judges is a sensitive legal-political issue, which affects that functioning of the system.
SPECIFIC CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL PROBLEM
President’s Nomination for Supreme Court Judges
The framers of the constitution of the United States considered the Legislative division to hold the highest influential power over the foundation of the government, but today the executive branch holds the highest authority among the three divisions of the government of the United States. The president has the power on appointing heads of departments of his choice, including nominating names for the nomination of justices of the Supreme Court, which is then approved by the Senate. The appeal court is comprised of 200 judges, district courts consist of 600 judges, and the Supreme Court has nine members of Justices.
The president is recommended several judges from the FBI, Department of Justice, Congress, Senate, sitting judges, etc. Once a Judge is appointed, he is required to serve for life terms, which is why nominating a competent person should be the top priority of the president. The president, serving is not responsible for all appointed judges and justices as they are required to serve a life term. Hence, appointing a competent justice for the Supreme Court serves as the president’s most significant legacy, as the justices and judges would be serving even long after the president’s term has ended.
Is it rational?
The framers of the United States Constitution left it to the citizens to decide and elect the Head of State and the Congress, but the power of deciding the judiciary was left with the executive and legislative divisions. The judicial division of the U.S government is the only division where the public cannot directly take part. The involvement of the public in judicial decisions can corrupt the judicial system due to mixed opinions regarding different sets of laws interpreted by the Supreme Court. Direct democracy could prove to be a leading threat to the freedom of autocracy as public opinion regarding different punishments and laws could put pressure on the justice system. The sole reason for the justice system to be functioning with authority today unhinged in mainly due to there being no public involvement.
The Judges that are elected democratically focus mainly on gaining approval by campaigning for issues that are popular among the majority and would grant those votes. Judges that only function on populist thinking may prove to be incompetent to lead as federal judges and Supreme Court Justices; hence, democracy being kept out of the judicial system is fair. The presidential elections in the United States become a contest about winning instead of aiming to provide better leadership to the people, taken from that example; public elections should only deal with the first two divisions of the government of the United States. The citizens electing the head of state and the Congress should be enough to give them confidence on their leadership to run the country, but not to interfere with the judiciary system by appointing judges. Therefore, it is essential to make the federal judiciary nonpolitical so that it might pass such verdicts that are not politically controversial and legally sound. (Brace and Boyea).
SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM
To find the solution to the problem, first it is imperative to acknowledge that all branches of the government oversee or keep the check on one another and when the federal judges are politically appointed, they tend to interpret the law or judicially examine the measures of the presidency and Congress from a political perspective. To eradicate the political bias, from the apex court, it is essential to develop a separate body empowered to appoint judges at the federal level.
Work Cited
Barrett, Amy Coney. “The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court.” Columbia Law Review 106.2 (2006): 324-387.
Brace, Paul and Brent D Boyea. “State public opinion, the death penalty, and the practice of electing judges.” American Journal of Political Science 52.2 (2008): 360-372.
Clinton, Joshua D, et al. “Separated powers in the United States: The ideology of agencies, presidents, and Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 56.2 (2012): 341-354.
Farhang, S., & Yaver, M. “Divided Government and the Fragmentation of American Law.” American Journal of Political Science 60.2 (2016): 401-417.
+447462439809