The United States of America is arguably one of the most complicated political systems. The federalist system essentially concentrates power and political leadership in two spheres. In essence, this creates two centers of power. This complicated structure has found its influence even in the judiciary. At the federal level, the appointment of the judges is a prerogative of the presidential albeit with the sanction of the Senate. However, with recent removal of the filibuster in the Senatorial voting rules, it can as well be argued that the presidency retains absolute control on the appointment of the federal judges. This paper shall canvass in detail the good and bad of this presidential prerogative in respect to the appointment of federal judges. The paper shall equally consider other practices such as those adopted by some states which have conferred the appointment of judges on the people through open voting elections. However, from the onset, it is imperative to appreciate the position of this paper which is to the effect that presidential appointment of federal judges remains the best method. In that context, the paper postulates that conferring this noble responsibility on the citizenry could occasion the belittlingly of the judiciary, a fact that every sane mind would not vouch for.
Foremost, it is essential to appreciate the roles of the federal judges in the federal system of governance. The federal judges as members of the third arm of government suffice for purposes of administration of justice and interpretation of laws touching on the federal government. In that context, it can be argued that federal judges exist for purposes of protecting the federal institution of governance. This should be read together with the fact that the president of the nation is the ultimate representative of the federal government. It is thus necessary that the federal judges work together with the president in efforts to protect and lead the federal government. One way of ensuring a synergy and harmony in work entails conferring the appointment role of the federal judges to the presidency. It should not be lost to us that the said role is not exercised absolutely and or from a vacuum. Indeed, in all the cases of appointment s by the presidency, a lot of evidence is available that the president is often guided by professional advice and recommendation. Accusation of favoritism and partisanship are, therefore, neither here or there. In all cases, it has been advanced by the sitting incumbents that appointments are guided by the law and the professional advice. If anything, the presidency is often alive to the fact that the public would react to any instance of abuse of power through a negative vote either during his reelection or the election of future candidates from his party. It has, therefore, been the practice that the presidency seeks the appointments based on merit, passion of appointees and ability to make progress of the situation in the judiciary.
Secondly, this paper appreciates the fact that the president is a political leader. In that context, it is noteworthy that the president often is the product of legitimate elections whereby millions of Americans have given the president the mandate to lead the nation. One way of minimizing costs and practicing efficiency is through a representative democracy system. In that light, it should be appreciated that the president having been elected by millions of Americans equally represents their interests and desires in the appointment of federal judges. In essence, the presidential appointees are the people’s desire in the eyes of the president who himself is a representative of the people. This dispenses with the rigorous and unnecessarily expensive option of going to the ballot for purposes of election of federal judges.
Thirdly, this paper appreciates the peculiar nature of the law. The law is the primary business of the judiciary. It is essential to appreciate the need not to politicize the system. An approach that includes the people in the election of federal judges would necessarily politicize the judiciary. This is because the appointees would feel accountable to the electorate. This may occasion a situation where federal judges interpret the law with consideration not of the law, but of the interests of the majority of their electorate. Such is the case in the presidency and other elective offices such as Congress and gubernatorial positions. It has been the case that elected leaders interpret and pursue policies that favor their electorate even when they are full aware of the fact that their positions are wrong. Often, the elected leaders fear reprimand which is manifested in the polls. The federal judges must by all accounts be saved from this unnecessary compromise and deceit. It is imperative to adopt an approach that ensures their independence and genuine service to the nation through a legal and unbiased interpretation of the law. The only sure way is to make them presidential appointees and provide to them security of tenure as the position is today and as it has always been the case.
However, it must be appreciated that this is not necessarily the best method that can be. Currently, the system is inevitably encumbered with a number of disadvantages. Foremost, the federal judges have largely been political appointees who feel obligated to return the favor to their political appointees. Such has been manifested in crucial legal suits that have surfaced in the federal courts. Two cases come in point, these are, the Gore v Bush and lately the Obamacare case. In the former, the Supreme Court upheld the controversial reelection of President George Bush. In the minds of majority of the citizens of America, it remains clear that Gore actually beat the Bush in the election. It has been argued that then, the Supreme Court was laden with Republican judges who had no option but to protect their presidential candidate. On the latter case, the Supreme Court again controversially upheld the Affordable Care Act despite glaring issues. Other than political connotations associated with the cases, the federal judges have equally been accused of being insensitive to the plight of the citizenry in the interpretation of laws and the solution of legal disputes. It has been argued that the transfer of appointment from the presidency to the electorate may tame the judicial officers and bring them to the purview of the citizenry consequently creating a sense of accountability.
In conclusion, with the foregoing, this paper observes that the appointment of federal judges should be left with the presidency for the reasons advanced above. However, there is need to inform the judges of the need to make consideration of the citizenry’s feeling for the president himself represents the citizens.
Works Cited
Buchanan, David and Richard Badham. Power, Politics, and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game. New York: Sage, 2008.
Clark, Charles. "State Law in Federal Court: The Brooding Omnipresence of Erie v Tompkins." Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository (2009): 1-32.
Goodnow, Frank. "Politics and Administration: A Study in Government." Shafritz, Jay. Classics of Public Administration. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009.
Madison, James. Federalists Paper Number 10. New York: McGraw Hill Company, 2008. <http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/btt/celebratingfreedom/pdfs/045.PDF>.
Siegel , Larry, Frank Schmalleger and John Worrall. Courts and the Criminal Justice System in America. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2011.
