When it comes to obstacles faced by a President’s Supreme Court nominee during the Senate confirmation process, there are a few crucial challenges which can delay or even prevent entirely a nomination. History has shown that when a President nominates a new justice right at the end of his/her term in office, the Senate is likely to object. Senators of either party tend to take more issue with a lame-duck President attempting to nominate a new justice than a freshly inaugurated Chief Executive – usually because it is considered unfair (even unsavory) to allow an outgoing President to make such a substantial appointment. Similarly, a President whose political party holds only a minority in the Senate quite naturally often finds his/her Supreme Court nominee subjected to long rounds of debate and other confirmation delays; without a majority of Senators on his side, the Chief Executive can find it difficult to marshal enough definite supporters. On a more personal note, if information comes to the Senate’s attention that a prospective justice has committed (or even seems likely to have committed) ethical and/or competency violations, naturally this poses quite a substantial problem for the nominee. Delays and/or nomination denial have also occurred if it seems apparent to the Senate that a nominee’s views or policy beliefs could lead them to rule in a manner that would alter the Court’s already established balance of decisions (for example, if the new judge is more conservative, that would help the Court’s other conservatives to outnumber the more liberal justices).

Unlike today, when it came to the selection and appointment of federal judges during the nation’s first century, geography played an important role. Presidents and Senators alike looked to a nominee’s geographic background, specifically which region of the country he (nominees in those days were exclusively male) was born in. Geographic considerations were so weighty because often, allegiance to either the Northern or Southern areas of the country carried with it a commonly-held set of opinions on the nation’s most divisive issues (especially slavery, popular sovereignty, and tariffs). In order to preserve the balance of the power in the nation’s capital, as well as the overall impartiality of federal courts, it was vital that a nominee’s geographic allegiances were taken into account, so as not to unduly imbalance decisions or to encourage biased rulings. However, since the close of the nineteenth century, geography has gradually ceased to be so vital; nowadays, the President and Senators tend to place more importance on a nominee’s partisan and/or ideological leanings, as well as their track records concerning both ethical and competent conduct.

This should have been an easy question. The correct answer is 1. There must be at least 1 District Court in every state. That said, there is no legal upper bound for how many district courts a state may have. Georgia, for example, has three district courts. Florida has three as well, California has four, and Alaska has one. 

This is a slightly tricky question. The correct answer is “12,” although many of you may have been tempted by the answer 11. There are 11 numbered circuits (that is, the “First” through the “Eleventh” Circuit). There are, however, 12 circuits overall, because D.C. has its own Circuit (helpfully named the “D.C. Circuit).

John Marshall served as Chief Justice from his induction in 1801 until his death in 1835. It is by some margin the longest term of any Chief Justice. Taney is second by several years and then no-one else is within a decade. The Court of Marshall is considered one of the most important term in American history. It was during Marshall’s Court that many of the powers and limits of the Judicial Branch were established. He also laid down many precedents that have affected how the Federal and State governments wield power to this day.

The Marshall Court, chaired by Chief Justice John Marshall, was the first extended Court in American history. It is most noted for greatly increasing the power of the Judiciary and the Federal government. It was during the Marshall Court that the Supreme Court was established as the final determinant on any argument over the powers of the Constitution.

The "incorporation doctrine" (also called "selective incorporation") is the belief that the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments as much as it applies to the Federal Government. Prior to 1925, it was considered that the Bill of Rights did not apply as universally at the state and local level as it did at the national level. In a series of cases since 1925 the Supreme Court has established that the Bill of Rights applies equally to all government institutions and levels.

While the Supreme Court is entrusted with many important responsibilities, the most vital (as revealed through study of the history of Court decisions) is upholding national legal supremacy. The Court has continually reinforced the Constitution’s ultimate status as the supreme law of the nation, often by finding in favor of the federal government in a great deal of cases involving state versus federal disputes. By ensuring the federal government’s legal supremacy, the Constitution is upheld as the final voice on national matters, thus safeguarding the people’s rights, maintaining the balance of power between the three federal branches of government, and making sure that all agents of government (whether state or federal) operate within Constitutional parameters. By upholding national legal supremacy, the Supreme Court is able to carry out all its other important functions, including settling disputes between states, enforcing correct and uniform interpretation of laws, and influencing national policy.

The Framers took certain measures to insulate federal judges and Supreme Court justices alike from the vagaries of partisan politics. The Framers did not want federal judges to be influenced or pressured into interpreting and applying laws or deciding cases to satisfy the desires of any political entity, even Congress or the President himself. The law was to be supreme, as untouchable and as blind to partisan arguments and party shifts as possible. To this end, Congress is not allowed to cut federal judges’ and Supreme Court justices’ salaries, so that a reduction in pay cannot be threatened in hopes of manipulating a judge’s finding. Additionally, both federal and Supreme Court justices serve for life, so that they cannot be unfairly removed from their positions by partisan motivations. In a similar vein, federal and Supreme Court judges are appointed to their jobs by the President; in this way, no federal judge owes their job to an election or a particular political party. However, as a check on the President’s power of appointment, all federal judges and Supreme Court justices must be approved by a majority of senators; no federal judge, even the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice himself, is immune from this process of confirmation.

While fiery debate about the proper roles and proceedings of both federal courts and the Supreme Court is not at all uncommon, by far the most controversial topic is judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is otherwise understood as the methodology used by federal justices in interpreting the Constitution, as applied to specific cases. Many people advocate a policy of judicial restraint, in which federal judges do not attempt to make policies through their rulings, preferring simply to follow past precedents as exactly as possible. A similar viewpoint holds that federal judges should interpret the Constitution precisely as the Framers wanted, adhering strictly to the Framers’ original intentions when the document was written – a practice otherwise known as original intent or strict constructionism. Opponents of original intent point out that the Constitution is vague or insufficiently explanatory in many instances, so that both Congress and the federal courts must necessarily step in to help clarify these discrepancies. These same individuals also argue that it is nearly impossible for modern-day judges to figure out what the Framers’ intentions were, especially as these men lived hundreds of years ago, in a much different world, and when these men disagreed among themselves quite often anyway. Proponents of judicial activism believe that federal judges should play a decisive role in policymaking by issuing rulings which correct areas of Constitutional vagueness, interpret new sections of the Constitution that have not yet been touched upon, and which amend injustices ignored by the nation’s majority. This debate is existed since nearly the very beginning of the federal court system’s creation and it shows no signs of dying down or of coming to a decisive resolution anytime soon.