Yes, judges are nominated by the executive branch, however, a nomination to the federal bench does not equal a spot on the federal bench.
After nomination, the nomination is taken to the Senate, where the candidates (if the Senate hasn't decided to take their ball and go home) are voted on by the Senate.
We have an independent judiciary at the FEDERAL level. However, the state judiciaries are a mixed bag. Some judges are elected, some are appointed, depending on the state.
What you missed in my comment about testing the candidates, Wom, is that most of the "pledge" signed by Rep. Bachmann has nothing at all to do with the powers granted the president by the Constitution. The President has nothing to do with state legislation. The President cannot Constitutionally introduce an amendment to the Constitution. The President has a part in the budgetary process, however, all revenue bills have to originate in the house. Welfare policy at the federal level is a revenue bill, and as such is the duty of the House. Resisting a Federal judicial decision is grounds for impeachment, if the judiciary decides that the Constitution says XYZ about an issue, then the executive branch is beholden to abide by that decision.
The whole "Pledge" is a miasma of contradictory statements which have zero relevance to a candidate running for President.
I'm not asking to make a civics test a qualifier for running, however, if a candidate took the test and failed it, it might tell the voters something about the candidate they were supporting. If a candidate can't pass a high school civics test (as Rep. Bachmann obviously couldn't, judging by the pledge she signed), should someone really be supporting them as a candidate for the highest office in the land?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks