Bush's Judicial Appointments at the Onset of Essay

Bush's Judicial Appointments

At the onset of the framing of the American Constitution, there was considerable desire to change the manner in which the Kings of Europe had the prerogative to appoint, demote, or fire members of the Judicial branches on a whim. They believed that, at least when it came to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, there would be less politization involved, a way to limit executive power, and allow Judges to feel less partisan in their approach to policy. The original purpose for appointing the Judges for life, then, was so that regardless of the current administration's views or leanings, the Judges would be able to interpret the Constitution based on their legal views, not the views of the current President or staff. This keeps the High Court relatively stable so that there are not swings every four years in liberal or conservative interpretations (McCloskey and Levinson, 2010).

In reality, though, the legacy and political/social thought of the sitting President can most effectively become a legacy by whom they appoint to not only the Supreme Court, but to the Federal appeals and trials courts. For example, even in 2012, the majority of federal appeals courts remained Republican appointees, which reflects the Republican domination since the Reagan years in 1980. This does not guarantee that the original political philosophies are followed, but tends to place decision makers of like-mind in important positions that decide cases that impact the philosophy and direction of the country (How Judges are Chosen, 2012).

President George W. Bush seemed to have a clear plan of action regarding his approach to judicial appointments. His view was robust, and pushed a conservative agenda that will likely affect legal issues in America for decades. For instance, Bush took an aggressive stance by changing the way potential appointees were screened. Bush eliminated using the American Bar Association, which had been in this role since World…