Pros And Cons Of Litmus Tests For Potential Appellate Judges

787 Words4 Pages

The concerns that Senators have about federal appeals court nominees is unjust and unneeded. The only people in the court system who have the ability to overturn laws of legislation and policy are Supreme Court Judges, so it is wrong to subject appeals court nominees to strict ideological tests that the Justices are given. The Justices are the only people who can overturn or rule things unconstitutional, whether it is from cases, executive orders, or when the bureaucracy overstep its’ bounds. It does not matter what an appeals court nominees personal opinion is on a case, because he or she will be following the precedent already set up by the Supreme Court. It does not matter what the nominees opinion is on Roe v. Wade, because as an appellate …show more content…

As stated before, appellate judges should be bipartisan and they should not be bringing their own personal opinions up to determine a case. Questioning nominees about their personal views about a case that already has a precedent gives them the idea that the appellate courts are much more polarizing than they actually are. Not only that, but if appellate nominees are subject to a “litmus test” there is a chance that the nominee would feel obligated to be partisan. Like Clarence Thomas, the nominee may become bitter and have their own partisan agenda after going through the unneeded and invasive questioning during their confirmation. This will deter nominees from searching for the right and lawful answers, and instead it will push them towards their own political agenda. The consequence of forcing nominees to do this test is going to force them to become radical in their views. The only court that is and should be truly political is the Supreme …show more content…

When the nominees are finally given the opportunity to be a judge, they are under the impression that they have to be partisan. The Senate will continue to not grant hearings for nominees, and the nominees will be continued to be questioned about cases already settled in the Supreme Court. Nominees will continued to be called out on their opinions, even though they have very little to do with their jobs. This may happen, but Rosen found that at that time this was written the D.C. Circuit courts had been becoming more bipartisan and cohesive in the past decade or so. Though, this is the already elected judges and not the nominees. With an influx of new judges who have been subjected to the questioning, there is a chance that this bipartisanship could

Open Document