Thurgood Marshall: Supreme Court Nomination and Confirmation

Thurgood marshal lordly court Nomination and validationThurgood marshall began his career fighting for voting rights and equal housing for African Americans and fighting against racial and gender discrimination. As head of the Legal apology and Education fund of the NAACP, he garnered an impressive success rate inclination cases onwards the autocratic coquette, (Gibson 110), which likely earned him the name to the Second rophy of the United States Court of Appeals by prexy Kennedy. In 1965 he was appointed Solicitor commonplace by President Lyndon Johnson, and just two old age later, on June 13, 1967, President Johnson nominate marshall as an Associate jurist of the coercive Court of the United States.Marshalls nominating address conduct to heated debates in the Senate opposition was primarily from southern senators who hailed from states where Jim Crow equitys were sleek everyplace in force, despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act three long time earlier. Se nate hearing transcripts cited one senators grievance that Marshalls ult record as jurist and attorney led him to believe the booking would birth a dangerous imbalance in the Court, as he would replace jurist Clark, who was viewed as a conservative. Ultimately, Marshalls nomination was confirmed with a 69 to 11 vote, and 20 non-voters. (U. S. Senate 24656). Sworn in by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall became the first African American Justice in the history of the United States. The 96th Justice served from 1967 until his retirement in 1991. (Thurgood Marshall).Marshall was nominated to fill an anticipated vacancy in the Court due to the impending retirement of Justice tomcat Campbell Clark. Clark was stepping down to parry a conflict of interest caused by the appointment of his son, William Ramsey Clark, to the U.S. Attorney General position by President Johnson. Tom Clark had been the U.S. Attorney General from 1945 to 1949 before his own nomination to the Court b y President Truman. Tom Clark had no prior judicial experience and Truman later expressed regret over his choice. (Dutton). Clark was viewed as a conservative, but turned out to be a swing voter. It is evident Johnson shaped the vacancy by design. In his remarks to the press, Johnson said of Marshall, I believe he earned that appointment he deserves the appointment. He is exceed qualified by training and by very valuable avail to the country. I believe it is the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place. (Peters and Woolley). It is noneworthy also, that both Marshall and Clark were nominated by Democratic Presidents in a Democratic controlled congress. (Lou Frey Institute). A loose ideological shift took place in the Warren Court, most significantly when Justice Goldberg replaced Frankfurter and Marshall replaced Clark. (Grofman and Brazill 63-64).The amount of time between absolute Court nominations and the final committee vote has varied significantly, from three years or little to 117 days, in the case of the 1916 nomination of Louis D. Brandeis. Between 1967 and 2009, from Marshall to Sotomayor, the Judiciary Committee has consistently taken much time the median(a) is around 50 days, but some took more than 80 days. (Bearden and Rutkus 13). The sidestep below shows how the trend changed between the confirmation of Marshall and his predecessor, Tom Clark. accede 1NomineePresDate recd in SenatePublic audition Datesfinal exam Vote Date last VoteDateFinal ActionFirst Public Hearing DateCommittee Final Vote DateFinal Action Senate or PresidentTom ClarkTruman08/02/4908/09/4908/10/4908/11/498/12/49In Favor9-208/18/49 corroborate73-871016Thurgood MarshallL Johnson6/13/6707/13/1407/14/1407/18/1407/19/1407/24/148/3/67In Favor11-508/30/67Confirmed69-11305178Source Bearden, Maureen and Steven Rutkus. arbitrary Court Nominations, present-1789. epitome. majuscule Congressional explore Service, 2009. Print. 23 Mar 2014 , 34-35.In his book, Pathways to the U.S. Supreme Court From the Arena to the Monastery, send Nelson says, 44 of the first 88 Supreme Court nominations were previously governors, senators, members of the put up or cabinet members. The Nelson theory claims there are four paths to the Supreme Court. Of those four paths, however, the most common is vertically, as former judges in other courts. Justices elevate from this bridle-path 47.3% of the time. Marshall ascended by a less common path, by serving as Solicitor General. Nelson calls this the diagonal route only 11.6% of Justices elevate by this route. (Reidel).So then, what is the appropriate role of the Senate in Supreme Court nominations? Should the voting public have a more active role in the nominations? Or should it be just left(a) to the President? If left to the President without Senate combine, the nominees would be ideologically suited to the President his party. Since Justices have lifetime appointment and Presidents have term limits, this may cause conflict between the Court and future administrations. The Senate consent feature acts as a check and balance of the Executive as intended by the framers. Similarly, if the nomination is left to the voting population, individuals may not fully apprehend the impact of a decision based solely on popularity or publicity. Individuals may not balance their own personal views against the needs of high society in making a decision. Furthermore, the average individual may not be qualified to determine the potential future legal burden a lifetime appointment on the jurisprudences of the country. The American break off tie-up reports that in 2012, a mere .26% of the U.S. population consists of a combination of lawyers, law students and law professors. (American Bar Association). Using census data from the Bureau of repel and Statistics and including a more generous pool of the population to include lawyers, law students, law professors, clerks, judges, paralegals and other legal support positions, while narrowing the scope to include only the employed portion of the population, the number is still a meager 0.36% of persons who have some knowledge of the law and courts. (Bureau of Labor and Statistics). everyplace 100 years ago, Finley Peter Dunnes infamous Mr. Dooley uttered the proclamation, No be whether th Constitution follows th flag or not, th Supreme Court follows th illiction returns. (Dunne 26). One study linked constituent whimsey to Senate voting patterns and researched how the visibility of the roll-call during Senate confirmation hearings influenced outcomes. Senators tend to vote against nominees with controversial policies. venture are high in the competition for re-election and senators must be antiphonal to the views of their constituents. (Kastellec, Lax and Phillips 676,782,783). Despite these results, the intent of the Senates role in the surgery is still sound. Senators are elected officials, representing their constituents. Although Senators tend to vote based on their own views and their interpretation of the nominees views, they also factor in the views of their constituents and the balance of the Court. And finally, Senate consent fulfils the Legislative check and balance requirement on the Executive break of government as required under the Constitution.Since Marshall back up quasi(prenominal) positions on civil rights issues as his predecessor Clark, the argument that Marshall would create a dangerous imbalance in the Court was moot. Although Justice Clark was viewed as a conservative, he was often the swing vote, supporting landmark cases such as Mapp v. Ohio, which applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to the states, and Abington School District v. Schempp, nullifying day-by-day Bible readings in public schools. Clark also supported the end of racial segregation and joined the unanimous decisions in Brown v. Board of Education. (Reger). Marshall was an influent ial figure in the civil rights movement, always pursuing the destination of racial equality. His liberal opinions challenged race and gender discrimination, opposed the death penalty, supported the rights of criminal defendants, and defended affirmative action and abortion rights. As a Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall believed the Constitution was a living document that should be interpreted based on the current political, cultural, and moral climate. (Maki 4).ReferencesAmerican Bar Association. Lawyer Demographics. Statistical. Washington American Bar Association, 2012. Print.Bearden, Maureen and Steven Rutkus. Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789. Analysis. Washington Congressional Research Service, 2009. Print. 23 Mar 2014.Bureau of Labor and Statistics. kin Data Annual Averages. Statistical. Washington Government Printing Office, 2013. Print.Dunne, Finley P. Mr. Dooleys Opinions. red-hot York R.H. Russell, 1901. Print.Dutton, C. B. MR. Justice Tom C. Clark. Indiana Law Journal 26.2 (1951) 169-206. Print.Gibson, Larry. Young Thurgood The reservation of a Supreme Court Justice. New York Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.Grofman, Bernard and Timothy J. Brazill. Identifying the median umpire on the Supreme Court through multidimensional scaling Analysis of natural courts. Public Choice 112 (2002) 55-79. Print.Kastellec, Jonathan P., Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips. Public Opinion and Senate validation of Supreme Court Nominees. The Journal of Politics 72.3 (2010) 767-784. Print.Lou Frey Institute. Composition of Congress by Political Party 18552013. 2014. Majority and Minority Party Membership some other Resources. Internet. 23 Mar. 2014.Maki, Lisa A. Thurgood Marshall. Research paper. University of North Florida. Jacksonville, 2014. Print.Peters, Gerhard and John Woolley. Lyndon B. Johnson Remarks to the Press Announcing the Nomination of Thurgood Marshall as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 13 Jun. 1967. The American presidency Pr oject. Internet. 23 Mar. 2014.Reger, Marianne. Meet The NJCs Founder U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark. 12 Sep. 2012. Judges.org. Internet. 23 Mar 2014.Reidel, Jon. Path to Supreme Court Runs Through Judicial Monastery. 21 Jan. 2014. University of Vermont. Internet. 15 Feb. 2014. http//www.uvm.edu/uvmpr/?Page=newsstoryID=17580category=uvmhome.Texas v. Johnson. No. 491 U.S. 397. U.S. Supreme Court. 21 Jun. 1989. Internet. 15 Feb. 2014. http//www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3498200303.html.Thurgood Marshall. The Biography Channel. 2014. Internet. 15 Feb. 2014. http//www.biography.com/people/thurgood-marshall-9400241.U. S. Senate. Senate checkout Hearings-Marshall. Congressional Record. Washington Government Printing Office, 30 Aug. 1967. Internet.