The Constitution provides broad parameters for the judicial nomination process. It gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the president. It also requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. First, look at the numbers.
More than 600 judges sit on district courts, almost 200 judges sit on courts of appeals, and 9 justices make up the Supreme Court. Because all federal judges have life terms, no single president will make all of these appointments.
But many vacancies do occur during a president's term of office. Appointing judges, then, could be a full-time job. A president relies on many sources to recommend appropriate nominees for judicial posts.
Recommendations often come from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association. Some judicial hopefuls even nominate themselves.
A special, very powerful tradition for recommending district judges is called senatorial courtesy. According to this practice, the senators from the state in which the vacancy occurs actually make the decision. A senator of the same political party as the President sends a nomination to the president, who almost always follows the recommendation. To ignore it would be a great affront to the senator, as well as an invitation for conflict between the president and the Senate.
Selection Criteria
Experience — Most nominees have had substantial judicial or governmental experience, either on the state or federal level. Many have law degrees or some other form of higher education.
Political ideology — Presidents usually appoint judges who seem to have a similar political ideology to their own. In other words, a president with a liberal ideology will usually appoint liberals to the courts. Likewise, conservative presidents tend to appoint conservatives.
Party and personal loyalties — A remarkably high percentage of a resident's appointees belong to the president's political party. Although political favoritism is less common today than it was a few decades ago, presidents still appoint friends and loyal supporters to federal judgeships.
Ethnicity and gender — Until relatively recently, almost all federal judges were white males. Today, however, ethnicity and gender are important criteria for appointing judges. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. All recent presidents have appointed African Americans, Latinos, members of other ethnic minority groups, and women to district courts and courts of appeal.
Because federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve for life, a president's nomination decisions are in many ways his or her most important legacy. Many of these appointments will serve long after a president's term of office ends. Whether or not the results are a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall," these choices can have an impact on generations to come.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Casey eats a lot of junk food. She knows the negative consequences of her diet but rationalizes her behavior by saying the junk food helps her deal with her anxiety. Casey is using this explanation because she is uncomfortable with the inconsistency between her actions and her beliefs and wants to reduce cognitive dissonance.
This term refers to a state that involves conflicting attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs. People generate a sense of mental distress leading to a change of attitudes and behaviors in order to reduce the discomfort and recover stability. That is what is happening to Casey and the contradictions in her behavior.
Rawls rejects utilitarianism because he believe that utilitarianism could permit an unfair distribution of benefits and burden. In Utilitarianism , the right or wrong is determined by which one bring the most happiness to the people. This will greatly damage the justice system because some wrong doings could be perceived as right as long as it make people happy <span />
<span>These are called radicals. Radicals are found on the far left of the political spectrum. This is a person who advocates a complete political or social reform who is a member of a political party that has these same aims.</span>
