Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Debate #10 (11/25)

Resolved:

  • The president has too much power in the selection of judges

**Please post your three (3) questions for the Pro, Con, or both sides of the debate, as well as indicating a question or two you would like to see asked in class (through submitting a "reply".  Make sure you read through the questions posted before you, as repeated questions will not count!  Questions should be submitted by11/24 at noon (12pm). 
Posted by at

29 comments:

  1. UnknownNovember 20, 2013 at 9:53 PM

    Would this debate be as controversial, or what would be the biggest change, if the Supreme Court Justices had a limited number of years they could serve?

    If the president can only nominate, and the Senate can only give consent, the two branches need each other to work in selecting judges. Aren't both branches playing equal roles here, therefore not giving the president too much power?

    For the Pro Side, how would you change the constitution so that the president wouldn't have so much power?







    ReplyDelete
  2. Hannah TollefsrudNovember 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    1. If the president wasn't able to appoint a Chief Justice from his Associate Justices in order be able to fill two spots in his favor, would the president still have too much of this controversial power?

    2. What do you think would be the best alternative/revision to our system of judicial selection that would make it less political, more efficient, and more representative of our nation?

    3. The Founders gave the power of judicial selection to both the Executive (president) and the Legislative (Senate) to share. Should the Judicial Branch be responsible, on its own, for selecting judicial officials? Or is this power given to the other branches as a system of checks & balances?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownNovember 23, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      I would really like to see question 2 discussed!

      Delete
  3. UnknownNovember 21, 2013 at 8:59 PM

    1. Do you believe in the idea that now the Supreme Courts' nominees do not have to openly share their ideological beliefs in regards previous controversial cases thus it limits or denies senates' ability to reject their nomination?

    2. In your opinion, how much partisan polarization has impacted the Senates' ability to reject president's nominee?

    3. Even though senators have other tools such as filibuster to block judicial nominee, the pro side still argue that the president has too much power in the selection of judges. How much do you believe the filibuster is still an effective tool to block a judicial nominee?

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownNovember 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM

    1. Do you think the founding fathers have changed the anything with the supreme court if they knew that it was being used as a political tool by these two polarized sides?
    2. Does the unwritten rules of a "designated seats" (example: the Catholic seat) in the supreme court potentially limit the president's powers?
    3.With a "vacancy crisis" why doesn't the president go public more with his nominations to pressure the senate?

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownNovember 23, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    1. How would this debate change if supreme court justices were not appointed for lifetime terms?

    2. How has the "era of openness and transparency," as Yalof says, affected the appointment of judges? Has it been a hinderance or a benefit to have the judges vetted in such a public way?

    3. Do you agree that the senate now has too much power in the picking of judges? Is what we're saying today anything close to what the framers envisioned?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anna OchsNovember 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM

    1. How will the nuclear option impact the power the president has in selecting judges?
    2. How does polarization decrease the power of the president when appointing judges?
    3. If the president has too much power when appointing judges why is there a "vacancy crisis?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Larissa SimoncelloNovember 23, 2013 at 2:34 PM

    1- Has the balance of power between the president and the Senate changed on the choice of judicial nominees? If so, how did it change?

    2- Senators have seen their opportunities to exert influence over such appointments sharply reduced. Senators are loosing power and credibility. How do you evaluate this? Remember that The Constitutional Convention of 1787 reject judicial appointments by the President alone.

    3- The “blue slip” was used to block hearings on nominees to federal courts. Do you think this is a useful tool, and does it benefit the senate?

    ReplyDelete
  8. UnknownNovember 23, 2013 at 7:28 PM

    1. What other system would be better for selecting judges that would be less political?

    2. Would letting Congress select judges just cause more deadlocks?

    3. Being able to appoint justices is one of the "checks" the president has on the judicial branch. If he no longer had this power would the separation of powers become unbalanced?

    ReplyDelete
  9. UnknownNovember 24, 2013 at 6:27 AM

    1. Is it realistic to say that there are a lot of people interested in a balanced supreme court?

    2. How much do citizens pay attention to these judges in comparison to how much they pay attention to the heads of the executive branches?

    3.How much influence do others have on the presidential nominee for judges?

    ReplyDelete
  10. UnknownNovember 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM

    1. Would the founders want to change how the checks and balances were distributed when deciding judges if they saw the lack of cooperation between Congress and the President? If yes, what would they change?

    2.If the filibuster is not a power granted by the Constitution, why do we see so many senators using it to block judicial nominees?

    3 Clinton and Bush both declared a "vacancy crisis." Do you think this means the Senate has too much power because they are the ones stopping the nominations if the judges do not meet their standards?

    ReplyDelete
  11. UnknownNovember 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM

    1. With such a polarized Congress, to what extent would the Presidential's power in the selection of judges matter?

    2. Is the President to blame for his growing power in judicial appointments, or is it the fault of the Senate simply not doing its duty to serve as a check on the President?

    3. With the growing influence of the President in judicial appointments, do you agree that Senate should play a more aggressive role to serve as a Check on the President?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Emily ZimmerNovember 24, 2013 at 9:05 AM

    1. Will the nuclear option lead to more extreme nominations by the President? And how will this change if/when power in either the Senate or in the White House switches to Republican control?

    2. How would FDR's court packing battle be seen today? Is that an earlier example of the President trying to exercise too much control?

    3. What would you consider the cause of the "vacancy crisis": increasing polarization and partisanship within the Senate or the Presidents' refusal to seek advice from Senate members, especially those from home states?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Roy TurnerNovember 24, 2013 at 11:06 AM

    1) In recent decades, the presidents selections for federal justices have come under increased scrutiny by the senate. Does this heightened scrutiny lead to the selection of more adept justices?

    2) Since the senate plays an active role in the creation of legislation, does the presidents role in the selection of federal justices provide a necessary check against the legislature?

    3) If the nomination process must be changed, how could it be altered to diminish presidential power without appropriating to much power to the legislative branch?

    ReplyDelete
  14. UnknownNovember 24, 2013 at 5:18 PM

    1. Would the Senate even be capable of picking and confirming a Supreme Court Justice before the recent change in Senate rules?

    2. How would adding different prerequisites to the position change how the Senate approves appointees?

    3. Regardless of the fact that certain appointees have to be approved. Would you say that the debate question is flawed based on the fact that the president has the sole power to appoint Judges?

    ReplyDelete
  15. UnknownNovember 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM

    What would happen if the power to appoint judges was given to the people?

    Do citizens really care about the placement of Supreme Court justices?

    Is there any way at all for the Senate and the president to agree totally on appointments, or will there always be room for disagreement?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alex MatsonNovember 24, 2013 at 9:28 PM

    1. Does Senate approval of justice nominees add or take away from the idea of a divided court? Is this a good thing or bad thing?

    2. Would taking power away from Senate confirmation of nominees allow the President to be more effective at his job?

    3. Would it be a good or bad idea to allow the current Supreme Court to choose and vote on nominees themselves? Why?

    ReplyDelete
  17. UnknownNovember 25, 2013 at 9:41 AM

    1. Supreme Court justices serve for lifetime terms. How would it change the system if this was not so?
    2. The question could be reversed in saying, the senate has too much control and power in picking judges. What do you think? Explain?
    3. Senators use filibusters as a stop to judicial nominees. Why is this used so often when it is a power not granted in the Constitution?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)