by Connie K. Grier
The United States has three separate branches of government, The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. While they are required to collaborate in the best interest of the nation, their separate functions and responsibilities allow for a certain amount of checks and balances to occur between them all. In theory, the aforementioned makes sense.
In practice, the process is not as fluid.
The Legislative Branch of government is ever on the look out for ways to exert their influence over the other two branches. As reported by Think Progress, the Senate Democrats found a ruling that would allow them to appoint judges to judicial seats via majority vote. This move was pushback to the Senate Republicans who attempted to hold onto their control over an important federal appeals court by refusing to allow anyone to be confirmed through the veto process. The Dems thought the matter was resolved until President Obama placed two Republican Senators in charge of the filling of five judicial seats, which could very well mean a Republican majority.
This has angered many Democrats, who feel that judges should not be appointed without the feedback from the constituencies served being heard. On Friday, Rep. Scott expressed his dismay, writing a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asking to testify against the nominees — “It is an abomination that these nominees for a lifetime appointment were drafted in secret, not vetted by any legal groups among the President’s supporters, and announced on a holiday weekend. We must not allow lifetime appointed judges to be rammed through the hearing process without sufficient input from the people who will be affected by their future judicial actions.”
Judges should at least go through a vetting process to give both parties an opportunity to make an informed decision about whom they are appointing for a lifetime of work.