Litmus test (politics)

Last updated

In politics, a litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination. The expression is a metaphor based on the litmus test in chemistry, in which one is able to test the general acidity of a substance, but not its exact pH. Those who must approve a nominee may also be said to apply a litmus test to determine whether the nominee will receive their vote. In these contexts, the phrase comes up most often with respect to nominations to the judiciary.

Usage

The metaphor of a litmus test has been used in American politics since the mid-twentieth century. [1] During United States presidential election campaigns, litmus tests the nominees might use are more fervently discussed when vacancies for the U.S. Supreme Court appear likely. Advocates for various social ideas or policies often wrangle heatedly over what litmus test, if any, the president ought to apply when nominating a new candidate for a spot on the Supreme Court. Support for, or opposition to, abortion is one example of a common decisive factor in single-issue politics; another might be support of strict constructionism. Defenders of litmus tests argue that some issues are so important that it overwhelms other concerns (especially if there are other qualified candidates that pass the test).

The political litmus test is often used when appointing judges. However, this test to determine the political attitude of a nominee is not without error. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed under the impression that he was conservative but his tenure was marked by liberal dissents. Today, the litmus test is used along with other methods such as past voting records when selecting political candidates.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is opposed to litmus tests for judges, stating in their goals that they "oppose 'litmus tests' for judicial nominees who are qualified and recognize that the sole function of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. We oppose judicial amendments or the crafting of new law by any court." [2]

Professor Eugene Volokh believes that the legitimacy of such tests is a "tough question", and argues that they may undermine the fairness of the judiciary:

Imagine a justice testifies under oath before the Senate about his views on (say) abortion, and later reaches a contrary decision [after carefully examining the arguments]. "Perjury!" partisans on the relevant side will likely cry: They'll assume the statement made with an eye towards confirmation was a lie, rather than that the justice has genuinely changed his mind. Even if no calls for impeachment follow, the rancor and contempt towards the justice would be much greater than if he had simply disappointed his backers' expectations. Faced with that danger, a justice may well feel pressured into deciding the way that he testified, and rejecting attempts at persuasion. Yet that would be a violation of the judge's duty to sincerely consider the parties' arguments. [3]

Related Research Articles

United States courts of appeals Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into thirteen "circuits": eleven circuits, numbered First through Eleventh, that cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders; the District of Columbia Circuit, which covers only Washington, D.C.; and the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Federalist Society American organization of conservative and libertarian attorneys, law students and law professors

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is an American legal organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. It features a student division, a lawyers division, and a faculty division. The society currently has chapters at more than 200 American law schools. The lawyers division comprises more than 70,000 practicing attorneys in ninety cities. The society is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Through speaking events, lectures, and other activities, it provides a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, and the legal academy. It is one of the United States' most influential legal organizations.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. In a 5–4 decision, the court ruled that Minnesota's announce clause, which forbade candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues, was unconstitutional.

Living Constitution U.S. Constitutional interpretation

The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views that contemporary society should be considered in the constitutional interpretation of phrases. The Constitution is referred to as the living law of the land as it is transformed according to necessities of the time and the situation. Some supporters of the living method of interpretation, such as professors Michael Kammen and Bruce Ackerman, refer to themselves as organists.

John Roberts Supreme Court nomination United States Supreme Court nomination

On September 5, 2005, President George W. Bush announced that he would nominate Judge John Roberts for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to succeed William H. Rehnquist, who had died two days earlier. In July 2005, Roberts had been nominated to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; however, following Rehnquist's death, that still-pending nomination was withdrawn.

Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination United States Supreme Court nomination

On October 3, 2005, Harriet Miers was nominated for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by President George W. Bush to replace retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers was, at the time, White House Counsel, and had previously served in several roles both during Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas and President.

Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination United States Supreme Court nomination

On October 31, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Alito's nomination was confirmed by a 58–42 vote of the United States Senate on January 31, 2006.

The Tennessee Plan is a system used to appoint and elect appellate court judges in Tennessee. The system requires candidates be selected by a nominating commission and therefore plays a significant role in the selection of the state's judiciary. It is largely patterned after the Missouri Plan, and an earlier version in Tennessee was called the Modified Missouri Plan.

"The Supremes" is the seventeenth episode of the fifth season of American serial political drama television series The West Wing. It originally aired on NBC on March 24, 2004. In "The Supremes", the White House senior staff, under Democratic President Josiah Bartlet, looks to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court of the United States when Josh comes up with a plan to, instead of nominating a centrist to the seat, nominate one liberal and one conservative candidate to two seats on the Court. The episode was met with mixed reception, although it was later noted the show bore similarities to the 2016 death and replacement of real-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Thurmond rule Controversial US Senate majority-party strategem to stop judicial approval votes

The Thurmond rule in U.S. politics posits that at some point in a U.S. presidential election year, the U.S. Senate will not confirm the president's nominees to the federal judiciary except under certain circumstances. The basic premise is that the President and the Senate majority are of opposite political ideologies and as such the judiciary committee will not allow an appointee to receive a floor vote from the entire Senate during a presidential election year.

During President Ronald Reagan's presidency, he nominated two people for the Supreme Court and at least twelve people for various federal appellate judgeships who were not confirmed. In some cases, the nominations were not processed by the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee before Reagan's presidency ended, while in other cases, nominees were rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee or even blocked by unfriendly members of the Republican Party. Three of the nominees were renominated by Reagan's successor, President George H. W. Bush. Two of the nominees, Ferdinand Francis Fernandez and Guy G. Hurlbutt, were nominated after July 1, 1988, the traditional start date of the unofficial Thurmond Rule during a presidential election year. Eight of the thirteen seats eventually were filled by appointees of President George H. W. Bush.

Janice Rogers Brown American judge (born 1949)

Janice Rogers Brown is an American jurist. She served as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2017 and before that, Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court from 1996 to 2005. She is a member of the Federalist Society and frequently features at events hosted by the organization.

Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination United States Supreme Court nomination

On May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama announced his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Sotomayor's nomination was submitted to the United States Senate on June 1, 2009, when the 111th Congress reconvened after its Memorial Day recess. Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 6, 2009 by a 68–31 vote, and was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts on August 8, 2009, becoming the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court.

Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States Political process

The nomination and confirmation of justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps, the framework for which is set forth in the United States Constitution. Specifically, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, provides that the President of the United States nominates a justice and that the United States Senate provides Advice and consent before the person is formally appointed to the Court. It also empowers a president to temporarily, under certain circumstances, fill a Supreme Court vacancy by means of a recess appointment. The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a justice, thus the president may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.

Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary. This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

Amy Coney Barrett US Supreme Court justice since 2020 (born 1972)

Amy Vivian Coney Barrett is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She is the fifth woman to serve on the court. She was nominated by President Donald Trump and has served since October 27, 2020. She was a U.S. circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 2017 to 2020.

James C. Ho American judge

James Chiun-Yue Ho is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Justin Reed Walker is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He is a former United States District Judge of the Western District of Kentucky.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination United States Supreme Court nomination

On February 25, 2022, President Joe Biden announced that he would nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to fill the vacancy by Stephen Breyer, who announced his retirement on January 27, 2022, at the age of 83. Jackson, a former law clerk of Breyer, is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, having been appointed by Biden in 2021. Jackson is the first Black woman in U.S. history to be nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

References

  1. ↑ "Campaign sparks abortion debate;NEWLN:With focus on Supreme Court". UPI. Retrieved 2016-11-25.
  2. ↑ "Wyoming Republican Liberty Caucus: "Goals, Principles and Positions"". Archived from the original on 2008-10-02.
  3. ↑ "The Volokh Conspiracy - Questioning Supreme Court Nominees About Their Views on Specific Questions:". volokh.com.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.