Throughout the history of our country, I have made the argument (and stand by it today) that the Supreme Court possesses the ability to make the most significant, sweeping changes of any civic entity within our system. Of course, our system is designed with checks and balances in place that, aside from preventing the possibility of tyranny and limiting the influence of a single branch, also allows for citizens to at least in part determine the composition of their government. Despite this, it is clear that some members of the Federal government wield power that is much more substantial than others. Within our country, many would argue that the President is the most substantial entity when it comes to shaping the Judicial Branch. Considering this, I would argue that the Senate Majority Leader, not the President, is the most powerful entity when it comes to shaping the composition of the courts.
Source: Federal Bar Association
Simply looking to any rudimentary civics lesson can serve as a guide for such a claim. If we consider the checks and balances, it is clear that the President does appoint Justices and Appellate Judges, though the significance of this power pales in comparison to the Senate Majority Leader. Though traditionally the Senate provided a sort of ‘judicial courtesy’ to appointed judges, the confirmation process has been decided by slimmer and slimmer margins as polarization has pushed the two parties apart in recent years. With this in mind, the Majority Leader’s ability to lay the platform of the party within the chamber that actually confirms these appointed judges is incredibly significant. Further, the Majority Leader creates the calendar, essentially deciding what comes to a vote and at what time it is brought up for debate.
Source: Politico
The current leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (Republican – Kentucky), has supported the argument within this post wholeheartedly during his time at the helm. Through his active cooperation with President Donald Trump (which he admits is an unlikely pairing given their personality types), the 2 years since his inauguration has seen the Federal Courts undergo a tremendous change. Only halfway through this Presidential term, the two have confirmed 24 Federal circuit judges with 13 more vacancies open. Let’s not forget the appointment of two Supreme Court Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, which has effectively created a young Conservative Court (5-4) guaranteed to alter the state of the country for years to come.
Considering this, judicial scholars throughout the country have concluded that Mitch McConnell’s role in the appointment process is incredibly significant. “The Supreme Court gets the bulk of the attention, but the circuit courts decide the bulk of the cases,” said Arthur D. Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies the federal judiciary. “Because the Supreme Court these days is taking so few cases, the law of the circuit is, on many, many issues, the final law for the people who live in that circuit.” During this Presidency alone, McConnell has a nearly indisputable path to reforming 20% of the existing judicial branch.
Moving forward, I am incredibly interested to see how future Democratic Senates/Presidents react to the increasingly polarized climate which relies more on a simple majority now than ever.
TLDR: The Speaker of the House is a big deal and has reformed 20% of the Federal Judiciary in just 2 years.
I think it will also be interesting to see how future Republican Presidents respond to the politically polar climate. I believe that Trump’s actions and media presence is a large cause of the current political atmosphere and that he represents extreme rightists. I doubt that the next Republican President will be as much of an extremist and controversial figure as Trump is. How will any successor of Trump handle the aftermath?
I think it will be interesting to see what happens the next time we get a president and senate majority leader who are of opposite parties. McConnell and Trump are able to pass judges through the system quickly now, but if one of those two positions became democratic, would the tension between parties mean that the appointment process would just grind to a stop, would one side have to cave in, or would there be some kind of compromise?
The correction of assumptions at the beginning of your post set up a good environment of open-mindedness to be followed for the rest of the blog. By taking who we assume to be most influential and then turning that title to another person takes some of our interest fro the first person and automatically transfers it to the second (the speaker in this case). It was also a startling realization that the supreme court really has less everyday influence than the lower courts. It makes sense but it also makes the numbers that much more alarming. How did one person gain this much power, and why is the media not covering him as much?
I like how you initially focus on how the president and majority leader preside supreme court appointments. Then your switch near the end to circuit courts and how those decisions are pertinent as they decide on the majority of cases and their precedent is sometimes more important that they set. Overall I like how you choose to focus on the future and what democrats can do moving forward with lifelong appointed justices.