Do you believe a Supreme Court nominee’s political views should play a role in his/her approval by the Senate?

I believe that a Supreme Court nominee politician view should play a role in their approval by the senate, because the senate has the responsibility of giving the nominee that fair consideration to a timely hearing and also their own timely vote. It is deeply troubling that the majority republican would decide not to consider fulfill their constitutional duties. With the republicans citing to a vague precedent nominations, it is thus not considered as an election year. The claims by democrats are that republicans should have the constitutional responsibility in at least holding a hearing and a vote on a nominee (Choper, 2013). 

The problem with studying the issue is that there are relatively few examples because it is believed that the Supreme Court justice has lifetime tenure. History has less number of nominees, though it is indicated that the majority of the nominees are highly considered by the senate, with a few vacancies examples taking place and considered in the election year. Even though the examples are found to be few, the rights of the republicans are well supported when they are to handle or not handle the nomination as per their wishes. It is the duty of senate to either confirm or reject presidential nominations as an imperative of his nominate to duty, in such that has been heretofore settled in government practice and that it is expediently now not or properly altered. 

Senators have every right in their deciding as to whether to block nominations in their consideration to the ideology of the nominee and to the judicial philosophy, which is not just their professional qualification. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids those considerations. The responsible senators should scrutinize attributes that will as well have major effects on the future of the nominee’s performance to the bench. Some believe that the president after winning elections should have completed his authority of appointing their nominees and senate in examining whether to or not intellectually justify the capabilities and the all around good guys. One gotten beyond the intellectuals and the personal characters that should not as further question the confirmation of the judge.

               I agree with this view, believing that the constitutional calls for senate advise consent. I also believe that meaningful advice and those consents include the judge’s philosophy examination ideologies, and records. The nominee’s judicial objections philosophy led to the opposed nomination and ad vocation of the filibuster. The reasonable senates don’t expect judicial philosophy nominee matching every way owned and should not only let their decision. I think it would be a great mistake ignoring the extremely important nominee’s aspect record (Epstein, 2006).

agree with this statement in mumimum of 200 words why.

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.