What is one of the professional rights of a justice in the supreme court

What Traits Should Every Supreme Court Justice Have?

By Laura Geggel published 17 February 17

Politics aside, based on the 112 justices who have served on the U.S. Supreme Court thus far, what qualities should the ideal justice have?

That is, what traits do judges need besides knowing the law inside and out?

This question is on the minds of many as Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch prepares for his confirmation hearing this year. Here’s a list of five admirable qualities that historians say have benefited justices and the courts they’ve served. [8 Supreme Court Decisions That Changed US Families]

1. Collegiality

Justices can serve on the Supreme Court for life, so it’s vital they get along with and respect one another. But collegiality also serves another purpose: This quality can help a judge bring another justice to his or her side during a case, experts told Live Science.

«Justice [Clarence] Thomas, who is often in the minority, once said we have to keep cordial relations, because the person who votes against me today, I may need him or her tomorrow for another opinion,» said Melvin Urofsky, the editor of the Journal of Supreme Court History.

This is why justices almost always sign a dissent with the phrase «respectfully submitted,» Urofsky said.

Collegiality is paramount, said Mark Graber, regents’ professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Justices need «the ability to understand and get along with people on the court,» he told Live Science.

2. Intelligence and modesty

It’s an understatement to say that justices on the Supreme Court need to be smart, but they also need to have a good sense of themselves, Urofsky said.

«Some of the worst justices who have been on the court were people who really didn’t want to be there, didn’t have a strong sense of who they were in terms of jurisprudence,» Urofsky said. «[They] were scared or overawed of other people on the court,» because they thought these other justices were smarter.

In addition to being bright, it’s important for justices to be modest, Graber said. Justices need to understand «that on the Supreme Court, you cannot solve the problems of the world. You’re a Supreme Court justice and not a celebrity.»

Former Justice David Souter is a good example of an intelligent but modest justice, Graber said. Souter didn’t go out of his way to pen sound bites like a celebrity, but «he had a good sense of what the court could do and what the court couldn’t do,» Graber said. «He was not a court leader, but his opinions demonstrated that he understood that judges are judging human beings and human beings are not perfect beings.»

3. Respect for the court

In addition to having respect for one another, justices should respect the institution that they serve. This means understanding that the judicial branch is independent and one-third of government, Urofsky said.

«Practically every justice appointed has, at one time or another, disappointed the president who named him [or her],» Urofsky said. «I think Gorsuch already knows that, because he’s been a federal judge.»

Urofsky pointed to an example that played out earlier this month, when Gorsuch reportedly told Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal that President Donald Trump’s comments toward the judicial system were «demoralizing and disheartening.» This was allegedly in response to a tweet the president posted calling federal Judge James Robart a «so-called judge» after Robart put a hold on Trump’s travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority nations.

«I don’t think [Gorsuch] was playing up to the Democrats on that,» Urofsky said. «I think he meant that.»

(Later, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Blumenthal was talking in general terms, not responding to anything the president had done.)

4. Varied backgrounds

Presidents once nominated justices with diverse backgrounds, choosing senators, law school professors and prominent attorneys, Urofsky said. However, ever since Richard Nixon’s presidency, most of the nominations have been judges from lower courts, largely because these individuals appear easier to confirm than nonjudges, Urofsky said.

«I think it’s been a big mistake,» Urofsky said. «We used to have judges who had some political experience.»

By this, Urofsky said he doesn’t mean that justices should, at some point, hold political office. Rather, like former U.S. Justices Louis Brandeis (who died in 1941) or Felix Frankfurter (who died in 1965), it might be helpful if justices had served as advisors to the president or in other branches of government, Urofsky said.

For instance, justices need to be mindful of how cases play out in the real world, as a politician would, Urofsky said. «What I would like to see in the ideal judge is someone who at least understands how the government actually works,» Urofsky said.

5. What not to do

Some past judges had some, but not all of these ideal qualities. For instance, Justice Frankfurter «may have been one of the brightest to ever go on the court,» but his ego was large and he frequently lectured his fellow justices, Urofsky said.

«They wouldn’t stand it,» Urofsky said. «These are people who had strong egos of their own. [Former Justice] William O. Douglas, whenever Frankfurter used to start talking, would pick up his mail, go to the couch and sit there and take care of his mail.

«When Frankfurter was done, [Douglas] would say something like, ‘I was ready to vote the other way, until Felix talked me out of it.’ In other words, he would have voted with Felix until he heard Felix talk,» Urofsky said.

Laura is an editor at Live Science. She edits Life’s Little Mysteries and reports on general science, including archaeology and animals. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Scholastic, Popular Science and Spectrum, a site on autism research. She has won multiple awards from the Society of Professional Journalists and the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association for her reporting at a weekly newspaper near Seattle. Laura holds a bachelor’s degree in English literature and psychology from Washington University in St. Louis and a master’s degree in science writing from NYU.

What Are the Requirements to Become a Supreme Court Justice?

There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.

What Does the Constitution Say?

The Supreme Court was established as a body in Article 3 of the Constitution, signed in convention in 1787. Section 1 describes the roles of the Supreme Court and lower courts; the other two sections are for the kind of cases that should be examined by the Supreme Court (Section 2, since amended by the 11th Amendment); and a definition of treason.

«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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.» 

However, since the Senate confirms justices, experience and background have become important factors in the confirmations, and conventions have been developed and largely followed since the first selection of the court during the first president’s term of office.

George Washington’s Requirements

The first U.S. President George Washington (1789–1797) had, of course, the most number of nominees to the Supreme Court—14, although only 11 made it to the court. Washington also named 28 lower court positions, and had several personal criteria that he used to pick a justice:

Scholars say his first criterion was the most important to Washington, that the individual had to have a strong voice in protecting the Constitution. The most any other president has been able to nominate is nine, during the four terms of office of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1932–1945), followed by six nominated by William Howard Taft in his single term from 1909 to 1913.

Qualities That Make a «Good Judge»

Several political scientists and others have attempted to assemble a list of criteria that make a good federal judge, more as an exercise of looking at the past history of the court. American scholar Sheldon Goldman’s list of eight criteria includes:

Selection Criteria

Based on the 200-plus year history of selection criteria actually used by United States presidents, there are four which most presidents use in varying combinations:

Should the Supreme Courts justices be elected or appointed?

The Supreme Court is usually the highest court in a legal system. In order to ensure independence of the judiciary, should justices be elected or appointed?

Role of The Supreme Court

Separation of powers is one of the most important requisites in democracy. Critiques to the Supreme Court Judges emerge periodically. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has recently tried to defend the role of the Supreme Court and shield it from the criticisms about the lack of neutrality suffered by other Washington institutions.

A supreme court is typically the highest court within the legal hierarchy and is a central element in safeguarding democracy. In most countries, the Supreme Court or Constitutional Courts are the courts of last resort. They are also known as highest court of appeal, instance court, judgment court or apex court. Their decisions are not subject to further review by any other court. Therefore, a Supreme Court has a very important role in maintaining great principles such as justice and fairness, the independence of judiciary and the compliance of the Constitution, when the country has one.

Since the Supreme Court justices (also called judges or members) are individuals with their own personal beliefs and political preferences, the process of how Supreme Court judges are appointed is very important. Justices are professional judges with long experience in the legal system, however the system in which they are elected or appointed may shape the way in which they act and their decisions.

Who selects Supreme Court justices?

Every country has its own hierarchy of courts, and it would be impossible here to list all of them. We outline here the Supreme Court justices’ appointment or election in five countries: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and India.

Should Supreme Court justices be elected or appointed?

As seen in the previous examples, Supreme Court judges are usually appointed, normally by political figures, sometimes with the advice of judicial peers. Some people claim that Supreme Courts’ members should be appointed by parliaments or ruling parties. Others argue that these judges should be appointed by peers. Finally some analysts suggest that they should be directly elected by the people.

Each of the three systems of Supreme Court justices’ appointment has pros and cons. For instance a popular vote could make judges more independent from the politicians that otherwise would appoint them. This in theory could reinforce the democratic separation between the branches of government. However, popular elections have some clear disadvantages. Citizens may not have enough information about which judge has a better profile and those who spend more money in a campaign to gather support could be elected despite their individual qualifications and independence. Probably political parties and lobby groups would end up funding the campaign. That would bring to the fore again the issue of partiality. On the other hand, judges can be elected by their peers. The main risk of this process is that justices may end up electing new justices with similar ideology to those already in the Supreme Court. That could create path dependent dynamics and potentially a discrepancy between the ideas and beliefs of these judges and those of society at large. How do we control judges and ensure they reflect the views of a changing society if the people or the elected representative don’t have a say in their election? But what can we expect from justices who have been appointed by politicians? Is the political appointment for long periods of time or life a better choice? The problem is that in times of polarization political parties may have the temptation to advance their agendas by using the Supreme Court as a tool.

What do you think is better to insure that the role of Supreme Court will be correctly enforced and guarantee justice and fairness or the independence of judiciary? Is Supreme Court justices’ appointment better than Supreme Court justices’ election? In a perfect system, who chooses Supreme Court justices? Should it be the people, the parliaments or professional peers? Share your views about the advantages and limitations of each of them.

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous.
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Supreme Court of the US was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The US Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States. It includes the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. They are appointed by the President and are approved by the Senate.

The US Supreme Court has original and appellate jurisdiction. Under the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls and cases in which a state is a party (сторона). In all other cases the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is only appellate.

The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution. But the judicial branch has the responsibility of judging the constitutionality of acts of law. The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the USA. begins its work every year on the first of October and usually ends it in the next June.

Упр. 2. Подберите правильные ответы к данным вопросам

1. How many Justices does the Supreme Court consist of?

2. What is the original jurisdiction?

a) The Court may try a case in the first instance.

b) The Court deals only with appeals.

3. What function other than (кроме) jurisprudence does the US Supreme Court have?

a) The Supreme Court can correct the Constitution.

b) The Supreme Court decides whether the laws agree with the Constitution.

c) The Constitution can be modified by the Supreme Court.

4. Can the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution?

a) Yes, it can. b) No, it cannot.

ТЕКСТ В

Упр. 3. При переводе текста выпишите английские эквиваленты следующих словосочетаний и выучите их

1. подросток 7. родитель или родственник

2. суд по делам несовершеннолетних 8. вести защиту

3. до 17 лет 9. медицинская карта

4. правила судопроизводства 10. домашняя обстановка

5. поведение детей 11. успеваемость в школе

6. менее формальный 12. сведения, предоставляемые

How Are Supreme Court Justices Selected?

Who selects United States Supreme Court justices, and by what criteria are their qualifications evaluated? The president of the United States nominates prospective justices, who must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before being seated on the court. The Constitution lists no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. While presidents typically nominate people who generally share their own political and ideological views, the justices are in no way obligated to reflect the president’s views in their decisions on cases brought before the court. The salient aspects of each stage of the process are:

The President’s Selections

Filling vacancies on the Supreme Court of the United States (often abbreviated as SCOTUS) is one of the more significant actions a president can take. The U.S. president’s successful nominees will sit on the U.S. Supreme Court for years and sometimes decades after the president’s retirement from political office.

Compared to the process of appointing the Cabinet positions, the president has a great deal more latitude in selecting justices. Most presidents have valued a reputation for selecting quality judges. Typically the president makes the final selection rather than delegating it to subordinates or political allies.

Perceived Motivations

Several legal scholars and political scientists have studied the selection process in depth, and find that each president chooses a nominee based on a set of criteria. In 1980, William E. Hulbary and Thomas G. Walker looked at the motivations behind presidential nominees to the Supreme Court between 1879 and 1967. They found that the most common criteria used by the presidents to select Supreme Court nominees fell into three categories: traditional, political, and professional.

Traditional Criteria

Political Criteria

Professional Qualifications Criteria

Later scholarly research has added gender and ethnicity to the balance choices, and the political philosophy today often hinges on how the nominee interprets the Constitution. The main categories have been in evidence in the years following the study by Hulbary and Walker. Kahn, for example, categorizes the criteria into Representational (race, gender, political party, religion, geography); Doctrinal (selection based on someone who matches the political views of the president); and Professional (intelligence, experience, temperament).

Rejecting the Traditional Criteria

Interestingly, the best performing justices—based on Blaustein and Mersky, the seminal 1972 ranking of Supreme Court justices—were those that were chosen by a president who did not share the nominee’s philosophical persuasion. For example, James Madison appointed Joseph Story and Herbert Hoover selected Benjamin Cardozo.

Rejecting other traditional requirements also resulted in some well-regarded choices: Justices Marshall, Harlan, Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Cardozo, and Frankfurter were all chosen despite the fact that the geographic regions they represented were already represented by the Court. Justices Bushrod Washington, Joseph Story, John Campbell, and William Douglas were too young, and L.Q.C. Lamar was too old to fit the «right age» criteria. Herbert Hoover appointed the Jewish Cardozo despite there already being a Jewish member of the court, and Truman replaced the vacant Catholic position with the Protestant Tom Clark.

The Scalia Complication

The death of long-time Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 set off a chain of events that would leave the Supreme Court facing the complicated situation of tied votes for over a year.

In March 2016, the month after Scalia’s death, President Barack Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to replace him. The Republican-controlled Senate, however, argued that Scalia’s replacement should be appointed by the next president to be elected in November 2016. Controlling the committee system calendar, Senate Republicans succeeded in preventing hearings on Garland’s nomination from being scheduled. As a result, Garland’s nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination, expiring with the end of the 114th Congress and President Obama’s final term in January 2017.

On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia. After being confirmed by a Senate vote of 54 to 45, Justice Gorsuch was sworn in on April 10, 2017. In total, Scalia’s seat remained vacant for 422 days, making it the second-longest Supreme Court vacancy since the end of the Civil War.