A Natives Perspective on the Country of Politics-Part 16

I have always disagreed with those who believe that the presidents right to choose
Supreme Court justices infringes upon the rights of the judicial branch of government, and I have
done so for two simple reasons. Since the American public has placed their faith in the president
that they have elected, then they should also be able to place their faith in the decisions made by
this president. We have already placed a great amount of power within the presidents hands,
particularly in the case of war powers, and what we must realize is that the appointment of
judges is as precarious a decision as going to war. Because these individuals are appointed for
life, a president must be careful with his or her choice, because they will have lasting effects on
United States lawmaking for many decades to come. Not just anyone should have the ability to
make this decision. My secondary reason for disagreeing with those who oppose the presidents
right to select Supreme Court justices is because of the system of checks and balances that exists
in U.S. government. As we have seen following Justice Scalias death, it was incredibly difficult
for President Obama to install his nominee for Scalias replacement due to the Republican Senate
that refused to approve this person. Therefore, it is impossible for the president to infringe upon
the rights of the judicial branch because their power to select justices is balanced out by the
legislative branch. In the end, the government has made it so that one branch alone cannot
exploit the powers that they have been granted by the people, and it is the same in this situation.
In the second 2016 presidential debate, the Democratic candidate for president, Hillary
Clinton, most eloquently stated what we are all searching for in the Supreme Court appointments
made by our president. Clinton states that she, as president, wanted to appoint Supreme Court
justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience[and
who] actually understand what people are up against. Our presidents should be able to select

justices who have the proper amount of knowledge when it comes to our countrys laws. These
individuals, who decide how law will function, must be aware of what is occurring in our
country today, and must be ready to take a stance on controversial legal issues. Whether they be
conservative or, like Clintons platform, liberal, justices appointed by the president will need to
make decisions that benefit the country and advance its citizens towards further equality.
Without the United States courts properly focusing on crucial conflicts in todays society, all of
its citizens will suffer from a loss of freedom more impactful than any other form of oppression.