Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

In Article III of the United States Constitution, Section I states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Supreme Court plays an imperative role in our constitutional system of government. The Court’s primary roles include protecting the civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution, ensuring–with its power of judicial review–that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power, and setting appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In the

As such, since presidents have their own political ideologies and agendas, they generally nominate Justices with similar beliefs, so as to best promote their partisan beliefs. In recent news, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an originalist conservative–one who follows the judicial interpretation that aims to follow closely the original intentions of those who drafted it–passed away. Prior to his passing, the Supreme Court comprised of 5 [more] conservative Justices and 4 [more] liberal Justices. However, now that [conservative] Justice Scalia is no longer on the Court, there are 4 liberals and 4 conservatives. As a result, there is great hype about who will succeed Scalia as the ninth Supreme Court Justice. The issue of the debate is: Should President Obama, a liberal Democrat, in his final year of presidency, nominate Justice Scalia’s successor, or should he leave this opportunity for the next president? Liberals–primarily Democrats–in general, are of the opinion that President Obama should, in fact, nominate a Justice. Contrarily, conservatives–primarily Republicans–for the most part, feel that President Obama should wait and let the next President choose the

Laws are universal, although they must be applied to particular cases with unique circumstances. In order to do this, judges interpret the law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote it. Presumably, a Justice’s judicial philosophy is at least somewhat associated with his/her political ideology. For instance, if a Justice has conservative beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial restraint”–the theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit (or restrain) the exercise of their own power. Conversely, if a Justice has more liberal beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial activism”–the theory of judicial interpretation that is suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law–or simply, broad(-er) interpretation. Consequently, judicial philosophy and political ideology are vital facets of Supreme Court Justice nomination