The federal judicial nomination process first begins with the President; he must send a nomination to the Senate. However, there has been a tradition of bipartisan consultation before a nomination is made, between the President and the Senators who represent the state in which the judge will serve. In the case of a Supreme Court nomination, the President will probably consult with the Chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Once received the Senate refers the nomination to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the nominee. The hearing is the primary opportunity for members of the Committee to explore the nominee’s qualifications, judgment, and philosophy. The Senators will then debate and even filibuster the nomination, which is significant because this is a check on the executive branch. The final stage of the committee consideration is meeting where the Committee decides if and how to report a nomination to the full Senate. The committee can report a favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation at all. Then the Senate will vote and confirm or reject the nomination. I am happy with the nomination process because this method allows a check on each branch. Also, I do like the consultation the President has because this is important to make sure that the judges are indeed qualified. When you have multiple opinions for judicial nominations, usually the most qualified judge will be picked. Therefore, we are getting the caliber of judges we ought to expect. As I stated, the Senate can filibuster and reject a nomination, and the President gets the nomination power, which means that the Senate is given a check. This is the only efficient way to select a judge and therefore I am happy with it. Having said that, it is not feasible to have an independent judicial appointment. No matter what method is invented, judicial nomination will always be political. There is no question that judicial nomination is becoming more and more political. Today, I do not think there is a question of whether judicial objectivity exists. Judges rule on their philosophy; in other words their political beliefs. A good example is the recent Westboro Baptist Church case with freedom of speech came into question. Samuel Alito, a conservative justice who was the only dissenter in the ruling that was in favor of the Church. Conservatives seem to have a stricter view on freedom of speech than liberals, even though it was clear that the Church did not violate the law. The only role the President can take in suppressing the myth is showing the judge’s qualifications. Many individuals believe that President Obama did not do a good job suppressing this myth when he nominated Elena Kagan. Kagan had never been a judge before, so there was no track record, and Obama made her Solicitor General. Therefore, we knew she was someone who followed the same beliefs as Obama, yet her qualifications to some may be questioned. Presidents over the years have tried to prevail the myth of judicial objectivity by noting the qualifications, but it is obvious that nobody buys it. Judges are nominated by their political beliefs, and that has always been the case contrary to what the founding fathers wanted.
