POTUS Appointed Judges: How Big a Deal?

[AFTT47]

As most Americans here will know, one of the powers/duties of the President of the United States (POTUS) is to appoint judges to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States. Just as the President is the head of the Executive Branch of the government, SCOTUS is the head of the Judicial branch. Along with the Legislative Branch (The Senate and the House of Representatives) these three branches comprise American Government. The President and members of congress are elected positions while judges are lifetime appointments.

Most everyone will agree that the composition of SCOTUS is definitely a big deal. What many might miss though is the fact that the appeals courts are a big deal too. In most cases, the decisions of the regional appeals courts are final. I may be wrong but I believe most cases decided by the appeals courts and appealed to SCOTUS are not even accepted - leaving the lower court rulings to stand. While the President may appoint a handful of SCOTUS judges in his/her term(s), lower circuit judge appointments amounts to several dozen.

How big a deal is this?

These judges decide many church-state separation cases like 10C monuments in courtrooms, so-called Intelligent Design in classrooms and faculty-lead prayer in schools.

These judges decide civil rights cases like LGBT rights.

These judges decide political cases like Citizen's United, what lobbyists can and cannot do and other trivia like occasionally deciding who the POTUS will be - Anyone remember the 2000 election?

I bring this up because of the ridiculous assertion some people make about there being no significant difference between the parties. I won't argue about things like the relative difference in corruption between the major POTUS candidates here. For the purposes of this thread, I not going to address who's in bed with who, who's the biggest liar or any of that. I request the same of participants of this thread. Focus on Judicial Branch appointments. What are the differences and how big a deal is it?

[Goosebump]

Well, it sounds like you already have your answer. Since the court is politicized, dunno when that happened or if it always was, it's a "big deal" if your on one side of that politicized system. If your left you want left judges and right to the right.

[AFTT47]

Well, it sounds like you already have your answer. Since the court is politicized, dunno when that happened or if it always was, it's a "big deal" if your on one side of that politicized system. If your left you want left judges and right to the right.

In theory, the court is not supposed to be politicized. That's why they are lifetime-appointed rather than elected. The idea is that they cannot be bought like legislators or the President can. In reality of course, judges tend to lean one way or another - and presidents will observe those leanings and pick in accordance with those leanings. That's just the way it is in the real world.

How much of a difference will it make if Hillary Clinton chooses those judges or Donald Trump or Ted Cruz?

[Goosebump]

Well, it sounds like you already have your answer. Since the court is politicized, dunno when that happened or if it always was, it's a "big deal" if your on one side of that politicized system. If your left you want left judges and right to the right.

In theory, the court is not supposed to be politicized. That's why they are lifetime-appointed rather than elected. The idea is that they cannot be bought like legislators or the President can. In reality of course, judges tend to lean one way or another - and presidents will observe those leanings and pick in accordance with those leanings. That's just the way it is in the real world.

How much of a difference will it make if Hillary Clinton chooses those judges or Donald Trump or Ted Cruz?

Guess that depends on your privilege.  If your LGBT, an immigrant (legal or otherwise), on health care, not a corporation what is also a person and also speaks with it's money, not a business with religious owners, don't have a desire to legislate what a women can or cannot do with her body, want science taught in schools then you'll probably want a left leaning judge and it's a pretty big deal. 

I'm sure there are allot of other cases that will impact peoples lives depending on where they fall in the social strata.

But if your wealthy, white and a man without any of those business types then you probably won't have your life impacted.

[Minimalist]

Let's see...by way of comparison.

Dubya appointed John Roberts... a sleaze who never met a business criminal asshole he didn't like.

Then he nominated Harriet Myers who was roundly ridiculed and withdrew her name.

And then he came up with another bumfuck conservatard in Samuel Alito...so yeah.  It makes a difference.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Circuit judges:SCOTUS judges as local politicians:federal politicians.

Who affects your life more?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Nowadays SCOTUS members are always Catholics and Jews. There's no real difference between them. They all have the same backgrounds.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Let's see...by way of comparison.

Dubya appointed John Roberts... a sleaze who never met a business criminal asshole he didn't like.

Then he nominated Harriet Myers who was roundly ridiculed and withdrew her name.

And then he came up with another bumfuck conservatard in Samuel Alito...so yeah.  It makes a difference.

When it was discovered that Harriet Miers was a Protestant instead of a Catholic they kicked her butt to the curb.  She had a long history of being involved as a Catholic although she had gone to a Methodist college.  She's not a Methodist.  And you have to be a Catholic or a Jew to get on the SCOTUS.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nowadays SCOTUS members are always Catholics and Jews. There's no real difference between them.  They all have the same backgrounds.

It's good that you're broadening your outlook! Always before, you only hated Jews, but now you've added Catholics ... you've grown as a person. Good on you!

[vorlon13]

Presumably circuit court judges "don't like" to be overruled by SCOTUS and since they don't know which cases they might be involved with might later be heard at that level, I'm thinking SCOTUS does have some significant sway with the rulings at the circuit level.

As for presidential appointees at either level, I'm again reminded of David Souter who was supposedly vetted thoroughly enough to be considered comfortably conservative, and did a near full 180 when later appointed to the Supreme Court, much to the horror of the conservatives who backed him.  And note, this situation can occur to someone who is apparently 'liberal' too, so there is always that joker in the deck when a president makes an appointment.

I'd actually like another 'Kennedy' on the court (a wild card if you will) as the current Kennedy there, as a wild card on an otherwise 4-4 court has WAY too much power and I think the answer to that is more uncertainty.