Nicolas Winters Group #5 Paper 2
What powers do the Constitution give the Judicial Branch?
A world without the Judicial Branch of government is a world without set rules. In 1787, the Constitution had created the Judicial Branch, under Article 2 Section 2, to deal with all of the new laws that could be set in place. The Judicial Branch also leads the Supreme Court, the highest court of law in the United States. The Judicial Branch of government receives powers backed up by the U.S. Constitution, has a very strict and complex system to become a supreme court judge, and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices should interpret the Constitution by how it was originally wrote.
Although the Judicial Branch has their own …show more content…
First, a judge has to be nominated by the President (stated in Article II Section 2 in the U.S. Constitution) Obama can replace whomever he wants to (filling in for Justice Scalia) Once the President has nominated a judge, the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to confirm and the President needs to appoint the new judge. Secondly, the Judiciary Committee has a three step process as to confirming a supreme court judge. Firstly, the Committee does an investigation into the judge’s background. Next, the Committee will hold a public hearing in which the judge is questioned and gives testimonies about everything from his or her judicial philosophy to his or her stand on abortion. Finally, the Committee will report a recommendation to the full Senate. There are three types of recommendations: Favorable Recommendation, Negative Recommendation, or No Recommendation. The third step, the craziest of them all. Throughout the Senate there are 100 senators, 2 for each state. The 100 senators consist of 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents. The Senate is forced to follow rules writers quote “insane” because, they are only understood by very few people and incomprehensible. Lastly, a vote will then emerge from the Senate, up or down vote, on whether he got the number a votes required or fell short. If the judge receives an up …show more content…
Pewresearch.com took a survey on Republicans, Democrats, and Independents on whether the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they are meant today or as they were originally written. Most Republicans said that the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they were originally written (69% to 29%). On the other hand, Democrats (70% to 26%) and Independents (48% to 47%) said that the court rulings today should be based on what the U.S. Constitution means in current times. In total 49% of the people that were surveyed, said that the Supreme Court should base rulings on today’s meaning of it. 46% of people surveyed said that they should rule court cases by how the U.S. Constitution was originally written. Although people today would want the Supreme Court by how they interpret the Constitution and would seem like a good idea, nothing extremely great can come from this, maybe only bad
What powers do the Constitution give the Judicial Branch?
A world without the Judicial Branch of government is a world without set rules. In 1787, the Constitution had created the Judicial Branch, under Article 2 Section 2, to deal with all of the new laws that could be set in place. The Judicial Branch also leads the Supreme Court, the highest court of law in the United States. The Judicial Branch of government receives powers backed up by the U.S. Constitution, has a very strict and complex system to become a supreme court judge, and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices should interpret the Constitution by how it was originally wrote.
Although the Judicial Branch has their own …show more content…
First, a judge has to be nominated by the President (stated in Article II Section 2 in the U.S. Constitution) Obama can replace whomever he wants to (filling in for Justice Scalia) Once the President has nominated a judge, the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to confirm and the President needs to appoint the new judge. Secondly, the Judiciary Committee has a three step process as to confirming a supreme court judge. Firstly, the Committee does an investigation into the judge’s background. Next, the Committee will hold a public hearing in which the judge is questioned and gives testimonies about everything from his or her judicial philosophy to his or her stand on abortion. Finally, the Committee will report a recommendation to the full Senate. There are three types of recommendations: Favorable Recommendation, Negative Recommendation, or No Recommendation. The third step, the craziest of them all. Throughout the Senate there are 100 senators, 2 for each state. The 100 senators consist of 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents. The Senate is forced to follow rules writers quote “insane” because, they are only understood by very few people and incomprehensible. Lastly, a vote will then emerge from the Senate, up or down vote, on whether he got the number a votes required or fell short. If the judge receives an up …show more content…
Pewresearch.com took a survey on Republicans, Democrats, and Independents on whether the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they are meant today or as they were originally written. Most Republicans said that the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they were originally written (69% to 29%). On the other hand, Democrats (70% to 26%) and Independents (48% to 47%) said that the court rulings today should be based on what the U.S. Constitution means in current times. In total 49% of the people that were surveyed, said that the Supreme Court should base rulings on today’s meaning of it. 46% of people surveyed said that they should rule court cases by how the U.S. Constitution was originally written. Although people today would want the Supreme Court by how they interpret the Constitution and would seem like a good idea, nothing extremely great can come from this, maybe only bad