Supreme Court justices are the highest judicial officers of the United States who preside over the Supreme Court and decide on the cases argued before it. Once such an office is free, the president selects a nominee, and the Senate should approve their candidacy. This fact ensures that the confirmation process is impartial, which contributes to the effectiveness of the Supreme Court by endorsing the candidates who have the most suitable skills and knowledge to occupy this position.
However, the recent evidence has demonstrated that everything is not so good as it sounds. One can say that the American political system has become partisan, which could not but introduce some adverse effects. Among these consequences, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the nominees tend to be approved according to their political preferences and other external factors, and this condition can result in a deteriorated judicial system.
To begin with, one should explain that the Supreme Court justices have always been in a troubled relationship with the nation’s politics. Schmidt and Shapiro (2018) report that it is so because the justices consider “themselves as above the political fray” (p. 315). When these officials cancel democratically enacted laws, politicians tend to challenge such decisions, which results in harsh political debates.
From this perspective, it seems logical, but not constitutional, that some senators approve those candidates who have shared political vision with them. Even though this tendency is said to create a uniform governing structure, it results in the fact that individuals without proper qualifications serve as Supreme Court justices.
As for the current confirmation process, it has substantially changed over time. According to Collins and Ringhand (2016), a higher number of hearing comments and increased considerations of nominees’ views of judicial decisions are among the most noticeable alterations. In addition to that, the research by Boyd, Collins Jr., and Ringhand (2018) stipulates that the confirmation process implies some kinds of discrimination.
It relates to the fact that it is more difficult for an individual to become a Supreme Court justice if they are questioned by a senator who belongs to a different political party. The same tendency emerges when it comes to approving a female nominee. As a rule, senators ask women “more questions about their judicial philosophies in an effort to determine their competence” (Boyd et al., 2018, p. 871). This situation means that suitable people may not become a justice because of their gender or political preferences.
At the same time, Badas and Stauffer (2018) represent the opposite approach. The researchers stipulate that the public tends to support candidates according to their race and social identity. To support their idea, Badas et al. (2018) present an example of Clarence Thomas, who witnessed increased support among African Americans. This information demonstrates that people can become Supreme Court Justices because of their race, rather than because of their competence.
In conclusion, one can say that the current confirmation process is not ideal. On the one hand, competent and professional people cannot become justices because they do not have political preferences of a particular kind. On the other hand, some individuals can occupy the office because they are of a suitable race or belong to the necessary political party. Each of these scenarios is negative for the American political system, and the government should take appropriate steps to solve this issue.
References
Badas, A., & Stauffer, K. E. (2018). Someone like me: Descriptive representation and support for Supreme Court nominees. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 127-142.
Boyd, C. L., Collins Jr., P. M., & Ringhand, L. A. (2018). The role of nominee gender and race at U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Law & Society Review, 52(4), 871-901.
Collins, P. M., & Ringhand, L. A. (2016). The institutionalization of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Law & Social Inquiry, 41(1), 126-151.
Schmidt, C. W., & Shapiro, C. (2018). The Supreme Court and American politics: symposium introduction. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 93(2), 315-323.