You have a great number of questions here, and I am going to address only the first two for today, concerning litmus tests for judicial candidates, the politics of appointments, and the Citizens United case.
A litmus test in judicial appointment is an inquiry into the candidate's stance on a particular "hot button" issue, such as abortion. As a president selects a candidate for approval by the Senate, the president's selection is often subject to such a test, and presidents must bear this in mind if they wish to have a selection approved. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, since candidates historically declined to be subject to litmus tests, stating that they would not offer prospective opinions but would only rule on matters before them, which is precisely what judges are supposed to do. Even if a candidate declines to be subject to a litmus test today, Senators scrutinize all previous opinions of the candidate for evidence as to how the candidate might rule. Thus, a candidate who previously ruled on an abortion issue has provided a paper trail that the Senate can make a judgement about. In my opinion, the litmus test is a perversion of the entire process of judicial appointment, which should be focused on the legal quality of the candidate's previous rulings, not on his or her prospective opinion on any particular matter.
The litmus test on abortion is just one test, though, and there are other tests that the Senate has concerned itself with in recent years. For example, the Senate wants to know whether a candidate is a strict constructionist, meaning that the candidate's philosophy is to never go beyond the literal words of the Constitution. Affirmative action and voters' rights are other areas that are subject to great scrutiny. Whether a candidate is pro-business or pro-consumer and the candidate's stance on the First Amendment may also be subject to examination, particularly in the wake of Citizens United.
The case of Citizens United ruled that business entities had First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, which allows them to support political candidates as they so please. This opened up a Pandora's box of campaign funding, since corporations have a great deal of capital they can use to support candidates who will be beholden to them and who will be likely to support their agendas.
On the political front, first, historically, there is no question that federal judicial appointments have always been politicized, if only because federal judges are appointed for life and a president's term is limited to a maximum of ten years. This means that the influence of the president on federal courts lasts well beyond that president's administration. Judges can work into their eighties or nineties, or really, even longer if they live. Thus, a judge appointed to carry out a president's political agenda and philosophy can have influence on the court for generations.
Second, there is presently a great political divide between conservatives and liberals, between Republicans and Democrats, a divide that is being played out in the rulings of the Supreme Court, as it is presently constructed, with four fairly consistent conservative votes, four consistently liberal votes, and one judge who is often a "swing voter." Several judges are elderly, and there is concern about what president will have the power to appoint their replacements if they die in office or retire, this president or the next one. And of course, this power of appointment rests on the consent of the Senate, too, with its own liberal and conservative proponents. Thus, the makeup of the federal judiciary is of great importance as we go forward, determining whether rulings will be liberal or conservative, pro-business or pro-consumer, pro-choice or anti-abortion, generous or repressive on affirmative action and voters' rights, and so on and so on, for all of these hot button issues that are on the table right now.
Those who believe that the federal judiciary is not the creature of politics are mistaken, since even before the days of instant polling and lobbying, federal court appointments were political in nature. Today, though, as the Supreme Court is presently configured and as it continues to be an aging court, the politics of our great divide is even more reflected in that court, and the chance to control the future of the country is what politics is all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment