Which part of the federal government has the power to confirm federal judges?

Article III of the Constitution provides that there shall be one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may "ordain and establish." The Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the Supreme Court and federal court system (uscourts.gov). The Senate Judiciary Committee, established in 1816, considers topics ranging from criminal justice to antitrust and intellectual property law, as well provides advice and consent for judicial nominations. The committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for nominees to the Supreme Court, courts of appeals (circuit courts), and district courts. These judicial officers, known as Article III judges, are appointed for a life term.

Nội dung chính Show

Checks on Judicial Power
The Power of the Courts
Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint
Which part or who in the government has the ability to confirm judges?
Which part of the Constitution ensures that judges?
Who must confirm federal judges quizlet?
How are federal judges confirmed quizlet?

The Constitution divided the Government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. That was an important decision because it gave specific powers to each branch and set up something called checks and balances. Just like the phrase sounds, the point of checks and balances was to make sure no one branch would be able to control too much power, and it created a separation of powers. Here are some examples of how the different branches work together:

The legislative branch makes laws, but the President in the executive branch can veto those laws with a Presidential Veto.
The legislative branch makes laws, but the judicial branch can declare those laws unconstitutional.
The executive branch, through the Federal agencies, has responsibility for day-to-day enforcement and administration of Federal laws. These Federal departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities that vary widely, from environmental protection to protecting the Nation’s borders.
The President in the executive branch can veto a law, but the legislative branch can override that veto with enough votes.
The legislative branch has the power to approve Presidential nominations, control the budget, and can impeach the President and remove him or her from office.
The executive branch can declare Executive Orders, which are like proclamations that carry the force of law, but the judicial branch can declare those acts unconstitutional.
The judicial branch interprets laws, but the President nominates Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges who make the evaluations.
The judicial branch interprets laws, but the Senate in the legislative branch confirms the President’s nominations for judicial positions, and Congress can impeach any of those judges and remove them from office.

See our "Branches of Government" infographic to find the checks and balances you see illustrated.

Not everyone agrees on how much power the judicial branch should have. After all, federal judges and justices are appointed, not elected. As most Americans believe in democracy, shouldn't elected officials run the country?

On the other hand, perhaps American government would be fairer if judges had even more power. Because they do not have to worry about reelection, they are relieved of the outside pressure of public opinion.

After all, the majority is not always right. It is no accident that the Founders provided for elected officials in the legislature and appointed officials in the judiciary. They believed that freedom, equality, and justice are best achieved by a balance between the two branches of government.

Checks on Judicial Power

Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee, its decision was not enforced. Nearly 4,000 Cherokee died on the Trail of Tears as a result of the Indian removals.

The president and Congress have some control of the judiciary with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justices. Congress also may impeach judges (only seven have actually been removed from office), alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution.

Congress can also get around a court ruling by passing a slightly different law than one previously declared unconstitutional.

Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

The Power of the Courts

The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka regarding integration of schools was not enforced until three years later, when Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, was integrated. Elizabeth Eckford, one of the first African American students to attend Central, was heckled on her way to school each morning.

The federal courts' most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.

Another measure of the Supreme Court's power is its ability to overrule itself. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that schools segregated by race were unconstitutional. This reversed the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal."

For the most part, though, federal courts do have a great deal of respect for previous decisions. A very strong precedent called stare decisis ("let the decision stand") directs judges to be cautious about overturning decisions made by past courts.

An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.... It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. the United States (1919)
The judgments below, except that, in the Delaware case, are accordingly reversed, and the cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases.Earl Warren, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1955)
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material [pornography] ...[B]ut I know it when I see it.Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

Charles Evans Hughes was first appointed to the Supreme Court in 1910, but left the Court to run for president in 1916. He was reappointed to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice in 1930.

Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint

The lack of agreement regarding the policy making power of courts is reflected in the debate over judicial activism versus judicial restraint. Judicial activists believe that the federal courts must correct injustices that are perpetuated or ignored by the other branches.

For example, minority rights have often been ignored partly because majorities impose their will on legislators. Prayers in public schools support the beliefs of the majority but ignore the rights of the minority. The Constitution is often loosely interpreted to meet the issues of the present. In the words of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

Supporters of judicial restraint point out that appointed judges are immune to public opinion, and if they abandon their role as careful and cautious interpreters of the Constitution, they become unelected legislators. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, "The Constitution is not an empty bottle....It is like a statute, and the meaning doesn't change."

Despite the debate over what constitutes the appropriate amount of judicial power, the United States federal courts remain the most powerful judicial system in world history. Their power is enhanced by life terms for judges and justices, and they play a major role in promoting the core American values of freedom, equality, and justice.

Which part or who in the government has the ability to confirm judges?

Where the executive and legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Which part of the Constitution ensures that judges?

Article III of the Constitution, tells us that judges “. . . shall hold their offices during good behavior.” Though this is a bit vague, the intent is clear.