Exercise of the Power of Judicial Review
The expression ‘Judicial Review’ elaborates on the part that the Courts in America play in reviewing matters of the constitution that involve the Government in both federal and state legislature. Though this power is not clearly stated in the constitution, the court charged with the most power and authority is the Supreme Court. Likewise, it reviews actions of the chief executives and verdicts of courts in federal and states (Baker). When the Supreme Court makes a ruling the only way to overturn it is either as later ruling or a constitutional amendment.
The state and federal government influences are limited by the constitution in order to facilitate individual freedom. All courts including the lower ones have the power of judicial review and can also declare actions of the government invalid. The only limitation they have is that this declaration will be subjected to reviews especially the Supreme Court (Rubin).
Historical Context
In 1803 the Marbury v. Madison case is perhaps the most significant case that the Supreme Court participated in Constitutional law. William Marbury got an appointment as a justice of peace when Adams presidential term was ending. Since Thomas Jefferson the succeeding president was not happy with the appointment he delayed the appointment documents by the new secretary of state James Madison. Marbury then decided to take the case to the Supreme Court surpassing the other lower courts. During that time an act of the judiciary allowed one to do that because the case involved federal officials of high status. The chief justice John Marshall saw the reason in Marbury’s argument but was afraid that if he sided with him the president would just simply not comply. Then this would cause a damage to the reputation of the Supreme Court (Graber).
The chief justice condemned the decision by the president but terminated the case because of jurisdiction grounds. He then stated that the constitution is law and the courts had the powers to determine what law was. The principle of judicial review was then established (Baker). This decision enabled the Supreme Court to participate in disputes concerning the constitution in the coming years.
The American democracy is founded by the suggestion that, actions by the government determine their validity. So when the government does the unexpected the judiciary is there to correct them. So, in my opinion, the power of judicial review is legitimate because it limits the powers of the government and its executives from exceeding their limits. To legitimize the judicial review more is that the constitution provides the judiciary with the powers to exercise this reviews. The founders of America knew that when they limit would limit the powers of the legislative branch and the president by making sure that they follow they don’t go out of context while interpreting the constitution. The only time to criticize this powers given to the judiciary is when they go out of the constitution in decision making.
Conclusion
The judicial review is one of the unique features of the American constitution. Since the judiciary realized that its mandate was conflicting with other government branches it created some rules to relieve the tension, for example, the courts do not engage in controversies and also its rulings are final.
Works Cited
Baker, Thomas E. "A Primer on Supreme Court Procedures." 2004. American Bar. Document. 10 March 2017.
Graber, Mark A. "Establishing Judicial Review: Marbury and the." 2002. Digital Commons. Document. 10 March 2017.
Rubin, Alvin B. "Judicial Review in the United States." 1979. Digital commons. Document. 10 March 2017.
Nomination Process for Federal Judges and Justices
In America, democracy is valued to an extent that most of the institutions integrate it. However, going against this belief, justices and federal judges are appointed by the president and the senate, this generated a lot of controversies over the years.
The process of appointing justices and federal justices according to the constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) expounds ‘the president shall nominate, and by the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint.’ (McMillion). The constitution does not provide any criteria for the candidates so it was done using the methods of the past. A long tradition of appointing district judges known as senatorial courtesy has been in use for the past years. It materializes when the senator from the state that has a vacancy who then sends the name to president to nominate the candidate. Mostly the senator from the political party of the president (ushistory.org).
The nomination process has political influence because most presidents nominate a candidate with the same political ideology as them. The president chooses the criteria of which they want the nominees to represent for example integrity. Most of the judges in the past years have served as appellate court judges who have shown a high degree of professionalism in their career (McMillion). The president considers nominees who will ensure that their policies are continued in the long run since this appointment last on a lifetime basis.
Another factor that can influence the nomination of federal judges is when the vacancy occurs and the speed that the president will take to choose the nominee. In 1993 president Clinton took a lot of time to appoint the successor of Justice Byron R. and also in 1994 Justice Harry A. Blackmun. President Obama did it differently in 2009 by taking three and half weeks in selecting a new successor Justice Sonia Sotomayor (McMillion).
President Obama has been very different in nominating his candidates for the vacancy positions. Democrats pushed to remove filibusters thus hastening appointments. He appointed judges and executive branch officers in the course of the recess of the congress. It was a plan to evade the congress consent of his nominees thus favoring his political interests. The judiciary could prevent him since he was exercising his powers as stated by the constitution ( Eastland). Although many would argue that recess appointments are unconstitutional, their terms are limited to the next session. But presidents who appoint during recess try to gain favor from the congress for their nominees because they have a long time to think about it. During the nomination and confirmation process, the president and the congress are limited to choose a candidate unconstitutionally. If they do the Supreme Court won't hesitate to point it out.
Conclusion
The nomination process of the federal judges is basically influenced by the president and the congress. This is evident because the constitution does not give further clearance on which criteria should be used during their nominations and confirmation process. So the whole process ends up being in the hands of the president and the congress and in the past years, the same results have been recurring. Maybe if the judges were to be elected the process would have less influence by the political ideologies.
Works Cited
Eastland, Terry. After the Filibuster. 24 February 2014. Website. 10 March 2017.
McMillion, Barry J. "Supreme Court Appointment Process." 6 February 2016. Congressional Research Service. Document. 10 March 2017.
ushistory.org. How Judges and Justices Are Chosen. 2017. Website. 10 March 2017.