How do US Supreme Court justices get appointed? - Peter Paccone

[@14s0cc3r14]

For those curious, they have the position for life to keep them from being affected by outside politics. Because they don't have to worry about campaigning, or even keeping the public happy, they can interpret the Constitution to the best of their ability's with no outside bias, only their own.

[@TheFlowivan]

Good to know.

[@whynotbrosay]

That1Guy so that means we can get rid of Ginsburg?

[@axehammer3850]

That1Guy Thanks for the info. But why no term limit. Why are they in the position for life.

[@sockshandle]

Axe Hammer I assume [ I Do Not Know Much About The Office] so they don't go Like [OH i Only have So Long to Make A Choice for the Country to Follow!]

[@zdwade]

Duhhh

[@engabdullahch]

To be judged by the ultimate judges, Time & History. Best closing line

[@MTF.TAU5..Bob.]

True

[@johndoe-eh3tv]

Jesus Is King of Kings exactly

[@JacobRy]

@@jesusiskingofkings4428 no

[@AaBb-ed2fn]

@@JacobRy Yes @Jesus is King of Kings

[@Saujas]

You spoiled it for me

[@valokouneva2341]

Please do more videos like these (explaining political systems, explaining political roles, the constitution, past presidents, how other countries' politics work, etc)

[@athrash5136]

This what I hope to do when I'm older. Wish me luck!

[@dax01]

Annie Thrash Study hard and I'm sure you can do it :)

[@kyokyoniizukyo7171]

wish ya the best of luck, and the ability to not screw up!

[@thehighpriest3550]

Annie Thrash I really wish you good luck and blessings...because this job is hard to get if you aren't a friend of the president...

[@pippinpaddleoppsokopolis176]

good luck, hope you're three years closer than you were when you wrote this comment!

[@wafeeqasultana3898]

good luck!

[@soufian2733]

Beautiful art on this one !!

[@highpriest5633]

To become a Supreme Court Justice would be a great Honor, God Bless all 9 of them! Republican or Democrat

[@boringbilal]

meh

[@poopa7642]

@@boringbilal Meh????

[@greekpestnyc3145]

@@poopa7642 Darth Vader has spoken

[@Sarah-bs3kt]

What is the difference between a judge and a justice?

[@pacific994]

"...... by the ultimate judges. Time and history." Time will tell how history will judges.

[@jessicarenehefleydempster6624]

AS A JUDGE WILL TIME HISTORY TO KNOW WHAT THE PAST AND PRESENT AND FUTURE OF CONSTANT ABUSE IS HOW DO I KEEP FORGETTING YOU EXIST AND BE ABUSED BUT FOUND HARVARD, YALE, PRINCETON, BAYLOR AS NAMES YOU CANT BURY EVER AND LAW DOES EXIST #GALVESTON #CCPD AS TRUTH IS NO JOKE I WAS ON MY KNEES TO GOD TO HELP ME FIND MY DAUGHTER AND NO JOKE HER PICTURE KILLS ME TO SEE HER ABUSED AND NOT WELL AND NOBODY KNOW HER WHEREABOUTS BUT FORGET I HAVE MORE CHILDREN SAME THING YEARS I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM AND DONT RECOGNIZE THEM AS ITS NOT DIMENTIA OR ALZHEIMER OR MEMORY LOSS ITS WHAT YOU TOOK AWAY FROM ME CPS MY FAMILY AND NEVER CAN BE REUNIFIED UNDER FALSE ALLEGATIONS I CONTACTED THE WORLD NOW NOT A JOKE TO KEEP ABUSING ME AND MY FATHER WAS NO LIER YOURS IS AND ILL PROVE IT IN SECONDS TO NONE #1 GOD IS PRICELESS

[@JacobRy]

@@jessicarenehefleydempster6624 are you ok

[@faroukiscool97]

@@JacobRy i don't thn so

[@eatcarpet]

This actually seems like a pretty crazy system.

[@EK-wv2xi]

eatcarpet こ

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

eatcarpet But it isn't.

[@SSJvegito501]

"No education" and "loyalty" are scary words I hear on this video. No wonder some want terms on these.

[@aimesdavid2800]

It isn't actually. A college degree doesn't mean a person could hold this post...nor should.

[@nczioox1116]

@@IkeOkerekeNews the fact that one 87 year old lady dying could change so much so quickly shows how unstable the system really is

[@Zaidsohail12345]

Who’s here after RBG died 😭😭😭😭

[@CommaderJohn]

#Trump2020 We must fill the seat with a strong conservative! 🇺🇸

[@tinal1600]

@@CommaderJohn Oh lawd...absolutely not.🙅‍♀️🙅‍♀️🙅‍♀️

[@nath-wp7xp]

Polite Rude Guy god bless President Trump. He is rescuing this country from the radical left. He is bringing back strong conservative values and will nominate a perfect replacement for the Supreme Court.

[@shaskins15]

Trump has made good replacements, he will so so again. RBG should be replaced with someone with similar leanings but hopefully not as far left on the 2nd amendment. Personally I'd like to see someone like Ted Cruz, because that's the kind of person who should be in a position like this. RBG was an activist not a judge.

[@tinal1600]

@@shaskins15 Yeah, no. The Senate needs to wait until after the Presidential election in November. Let the election dictate the next Surpreme Court Justice.

[@njmudaliar]

The Supreme Court needs to start protecting our rights from govt overreach, not enabling it. Legalize freedom!

[@vj4390]

Loved the ending... "...the ultimate judges Time and History."

[@FirstLast-pt6vu]

History is decided by the winners.

[@marius8014]

May i say that it is very undemocratic that effectively one party can appoint the highest judges in the country?

[@izouji2153]

ArtoriasFromTheDark I 100% agree

[@l01230123]

The party in power (determined by voters) appoints the justices. It's at least partially democratic, and the party's values are usually represented. It ain't perfect but calling it "very undemocratic" is misleading

[@thebadtwin000]

Lets brainstorm ways to fix it. I'll start, Maybe only state supreme court justices competitively elected, should be given the advise and consent role that the senate holds with greater leeway www.justiceatstake.org/issues/state_court_issues/competitive-elections/

[@TheZachary86]

ArtoriasFromTheDark appointing judges arent suppose to be democratic

[@DecoyBlackMage]

The reason why people call it undemocratic, has more to do with how long they can keep said seat. It can be decades, usually only leaving via death or retirement due to health issues etc.

[@samym1694]

1:20 Like Eisenhower, Trump appointed 3 justices to help him win election but instead, they rejected his lawsuit.

[@maka8551]

Whenever people talk of a "liberal/conservative" majority on the Supreme court it makes makes me vomit. They serve for life for a reason. They interpret the constitution impartial of party alignment, which was proven when every conservative justice threw out Trumps phony election suits.

[@dannypal123]

A very clear and informative civics lesson. Thank you!

[@RainierKine]

The very use of the executive branch and senate the verify the judge ensures it will always be partisan.

[@14s0cc3r14]

lol what?

[@RainierKine]

I mean the judges will aways be bias toward the party who put them there, so the judicial branch is not free from party-party affairs as it was meant to be.

[@aliensinnoh1]

No thank you, I feel like having the judges farther removed from the political process, ie not elected at all, keeps them from being too political. I mean, just look at Chief Justice Roberts, he was appointed by Bush, but he was the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare. And Kennedy, a Justice appointed by Reagan, was the deciding vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Scalia was the most conservative member of the court, so him being replaced by another conservative when Trump takes power will just put the Supreme Court back to where it was before he died, the same Court that upheld Obamacare and legalized same-sex marriage.

[@FirstLast-pt6vu]

@@nickjohnston1052 other than Amy Coney or Merrick Garland, name one living judge that would be qualified for the position of supreme court justice and why... you can't because the general public is not educated enough to know what makes a good judge. Edit: Furthermore, if judges had to campaign to *convince* the public that they are good judges, then they would no longer be impartial. The act of campaigning and appealing to a certain side removes impartiality.

[@maka8551]

@@RainierKine No they aren't. They interpret the constitution absolutely impartially. This was proven when every conservative justice threw out Trumps phony election lawsuits. This is why they serve for life.

[@yellowtheyellow]

It would be so nice if politicians just... did their jobs well once. Just a single time. Please?

[@nanda-re2yp]

Your Average Person i like carrot

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

yellowtheyellow Like they do all the time.

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

So, like they have been doing?

[@yellowtheyellow]

@@IkeOkerekeNews Idk where you live or why you're so dedicated to this topic, but things sure haven't gotten any better here.

[@fragglepilled]

give an example.

[@doubled6490]

This is so clearly flawed system with easy corruption.

[@legitname6687]

Want to get approved by the senate? Just donate a million to the Clinton foundation.

[@UnpredictableSB]

Actually, the opposite is true. Regular judges can be corrupted because they have to run political fundraisers. And the supreme court isn't corrupt because they don't need to worried about being reelected. That's why we're not worried about Obama's pick for Supreme Court. Guy is basically hard on crime because he was corrupted by private prison money. Once he is elected, Obama is essentially cutting his ties with them. Thanks Obama.

[@olivergray9562]

Double D How? The entire point of the legislature approving the candidate is to make sure the majority of experienced people agree with the fact that this person should serve on a very important position.

[@doubled6490]

Oliver Gray exactly, it is not majority of PEOPLE if only senate chooses

[@olivergray9562]

Double D THATS THE POINT!!!!

[@ShrimpySimp]

AYYY youtube recommendations giving us some PERFECT TIMING.............

[@asmith7094]

Here after RBG died RIP

[@commanderofkesariyaknights]

Baby killer...out out out

[@luisdiegomorataya3505]

she was just a clump of cells

[@boringbilal]

meh

[@camilabullones3635]

Rip

[@3dtv509]

Amy Coney Barrett's gonna be an outstanding supreme court justice.

[@schojdfjf6495]

She didn’t even know the first 5 rights 😂😂 I hope she doesn’t get elected in

[@Alan-eb6zi]

@@schojdfjf6495 she knows more than all the dems put together

[@Namodeus]

@@Alan-eb6zi I find this funny.

[@dangokissu]

Thank you, I never learned how this works.

[@alexandrafelix8334]

Who else is here ecause their teacher assigned them this

[@shardulparthasarathy6661]

I wouldnt normally watch ted ed videos on government, so yeah. But I still think the ted ed puzzles are pretty cool

[@kiingsomniia]

yup

[@camilabullones3635]

Yup

[@M1234-t3x]

Same

[@tiara.j4858]

mhm

[@thecasualfront7432]

It would be totally unconstitutional here in the uk for the executive to appoint a judge, your system is crazy!

[@user-ez5vq9fd2t]

The funny thing about that is the US consitution is different from the UK constitution. There are also checks and balances beyond the executive branch appointing a judge (did you watch the video?).

[@Anastas1786]

The executive _doesn't_ just appoint a judge willy-nilly, the legislature _also_ has a say. Congress and its Committees on the Judiciary have every right to turn down his appointments until he picks one the two branches can agree on. Granted, he might have an easier time if the Senate elections turn out mostly in favor of his party, but that's just democracy at work. Besides, _your_ Constitution is not _our_ Constitution. It doesn't _matter_ to the Supreme Court or United States Congress what the British think the Prime Minister and/or the Queen should or shouldn't be allowed to do; we have different governments, which the citizens of their respective countries agree works for them. Our two systems are _different,_ not necessarily "crazy".

[@jackbauer5386]

Yeah, become there's this concept called the separation of powers. The US is an archaic state that's overdue for a good modernization of its institutions.

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

Jack Bauer But it isn't.

[@lucho93062]

Let me say that coming from a third world country where several checks and balances exist to make sure the election of a high court justice is not politicized, and where candidates have to comply with several sound requirements like being a lawyer, for example, I am appalled at how arbitrary and unchecked the elections of supreme court justices are in the US.

[@lucho93062]

***** Good point. It's true, lawyers tend to monopolize the interpretation of the law, and end up putting it away from people. But I still think Supreme Court Justices must have a high level of legal understanding in order to ensure legal stability in their decisions and a coherent solution of difficult legal gaps, as those always arise. I suppose that such a filter must exist, despite not being in the constitution.

[@hyrekandragon2665]

The thing is that issues aren't always, if ever, legislative. Any kind of issue can go to the Supreme Court as long as it violates the Constitution. In most cases that I can think of, any issue that went to Supreme Court was rootet mostly in social issues.

[@lucho93062]

Alex Chuoy I get it, the justices have to confront situations of life with the Constitution to decide on the legality of it. It's just that their decisions have the binding scope of law, and it's unfortunate that there aren't more checks to ensure less politically biased decisions. The best ones capable to administer justice, regardless of their political stands, should be the ones in charge of an office like that. That's a more checked system, the president simply should't have as much power as it does right now on that matter.

[@TrongTran-vf9bq]

+Luis Camilo uk

[@sockshandle]

Luis Camilo [At the same time though The President Somewhat Brings Progress to the Supreme Court [In a way its Organized Chaos] Also Lawyers [At least in Primarily Capitalist Countries] Care more about What they Get Out of it Rather Than The Implications For Example In The UK [No offence UK] A Lawyer Will More or less Support His Client Till An End [When he Gets Paid] I Think The System Currently Works Fine [And As The Saying that i Hear Often Times Goes If It Works Why Fix it ?]

[@sacredbanana]

I recently had jury duty and that was very interesting

[@ratatataraxia]

I think judges should not be allowed to have political party affiliations, defeats to purpose of "unbiased". Only independents should be allowed to be judges, the only truly impartial people in my opinion.

[@ratatataraxia]

zh11147 well then they aren't independent, now are they?

[@Anastas1786]

That might be a bit better, but by forbidding the President from appointing those with party affiliations to the Supreme Court, you could be considered to be running up against the candidates' right to freedom of association, which was held by the Court in _NAACP v. Virginia_ to be an essential part of freedom of speech, a First Amendment right.

[@romeor6231]

Independents can be considered a party as well. Considering a party contains a set of values or beliefs. Independents have their own values they just fall in the middle.

[@92alexmaster]

And how will you measure a person's bias? and unbiased person will look biased to a biased person.

[@2wongsdontmakearice588]

Actually the SCOTUS is heavily weighed to the left. Even if the 9th Justice is conservative, the SCOTUS is still left.

[@benjamindada638]

One never graduated from high school

[@jb894]

and?

[@reymichaelsungazornosa4040]

Time was weird back then so it is kind of unfair to compare today to the past

[@jordanleiva5562]

Does it meam anybody in american can be a juge at the suprem court ?

[@Lion10104]

@@jordanleiva5562 technically yes, but realistically no

[@a_man8386]

But he did pass the bar

[@strange_and_magnificent]

The animation is amazing. 👍🏻👍🏻

[@Lemonducky86]

Apparently you can also block appointments until someone of your party takes the presidency. Seems like what the founders had in mind.

[@ZAGGNUT1]

Lemonducky86 why do i get the feeling we getting overtly biased judges in the near future?

[@Lemonducky86]

That wouldn't be nearly as revolting had the Republicans not tossed the Constitution in the trash to get that extra justice.

[@DC_Greed]

That is exactly what they had in mind, if the people of the U.S didn't want that then they would have voted for a change in the Senate this past election, but they didn't. The importance of blocking picks that you don't like are just as important as approving ones you do like! President Obama's job is to pick someone who the Senate can agree on, the Senate is not obligated to pick whoever President Obama want's, but to find someone they both agree on, President Obama not once suggested anyone else from his first pick.

[@d.s.parentsr6502]

+Devin Cook - Don't pretend that they could've agreed on a different selection. Their objection wasn't WHO he selected, it was that HE selected them. Republicans are holding the seat hostage until they can be the hero just like Vietnam with Nixon's treason. Shameless, self-serving obstructionism.

[@DC_Greed]

Not sure why you keep pretending that it isn't perfectly within the rules to hold it up for as long as they want to. If people cared about it they could hold the Republican Party accountable and boot them out during the elections where people just had a chance to flip congress, which was expected, but it didn't happen. The country didn't fall apart and the only thing that would happen is the lower courts would have the final ruling and not the supreme court, so it isn't like we are all here with no laws.

[@raymondedge8889]

Exact quote from the constitution. "The President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint....Justices of the Supreme Court." Reference, Prentice Hall Magruder's 'American Government'. Page 509, paragraph titled 'Appointment of Judges'. Boom...end of story. Even up to his last day in office, The president can appoint a Judge. No Democratic approval required.

[@wellingtonpaurosi4161]

As simple as that

[@kaisle8412]

Tell Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Grassley

[@alia.1041]

yeah... if only mitch mcconnell and lindsay graham agreed

[@maka8551]

when did it become the senate has to vote on the justice, sounds like they just need to advise the president rather than allow it

[@trangvophuong6919]

@@maka8551 The Constitution uses the term "advice and consent." Whenever the Senate votes to confirm a nomination, that's how the Senate "advises and consents" to the nomination. They advise and consent to the nomination by confirming it.

[@sourabhtiwri]

Great work you people do

[@domtorres779]

Dear Ted-ed, could you please bring back your series of "history vs. X" but this time of late President Marcos of the Philippines. It's a very relevant issue right now here and would like to know the thought of non-filipinos that view it from a non-subjective standpoint. Thanks!

[@iamthecheese6333]

Thank you for referencing my grandfather. He was a great man.

[@theguywhoasked5591]

Who was your grandfather ?

[@robloxpro947]

*HOLD UP*

[@Jacob-on5zh]

One thing I would say they could've explained better is they're not appointed, rather than nominated, I just think the word shouldn't have been used at all but they did try to explain it. Great video.

[@travislarson148]

Anyone else here in 2020?

[@borninusanoacherbabehere931]

The Supreme Court really needs to change employment for life the seniors think it’s a retirement home nope shady oaks inn is that way 👉🏻

[@kkheflin3]

Agreed. Just like the Congress. They get in there and stay for life. I am a big believer in term limits but that will never happen because Congress will never vote to limit their own terms!

[@wenateng]

rest in power, RBG. ❤️

[@bluesblooms]

Maybe one day I’ll get there.

[@Elizabeth-mj5br]

The end got way too deep for this late at night

[@real.maxxing]

Where can there be judicial independence and sovereignty if the system is built on the executive and legistive interfering with the judiciary?

[@_jjp7]

My teach made me see this... Anyone relate.

[@Personalquestion]

same

[@funwithyoutubeee3164]

Can someone please explain what they mean by "without respect to persons"? (3:05)

[@thatoneguy2136]

Meaning they don’t owe anyone anything or make decisions based on favors or anything that would get in the way of their decision making. In other words no one should influence their decision.

[@hansng980]

Very well explained, propre and easy ! Subscribed

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Can we get Judge Judy onto the Supreme Court?

[@AndresSanchez-io1oi]

Lmaoo

[@ilect1690]

Technically the senate holds the real power. Whichever party has dominance over the senate can choose who gets elected. This happened with obama/trump. The republican dominated senate voted against every single appointee that obama selected. This way, when trump became president he got to pack way more republican justices to the supreme court then he should have because the senate denied all of obamas appointees

[@TheGeorgeee13]

FILL THE SEAT

[@Mclovinian]

Get a life Jorge. Your opinion is irrelevant

[@eliannyalvarez7031]

@@Mclovinian Im not sure if either of y’all are dem or republican, but please be respectful . If you disagree say so , no need to be rude and say His opinion is irrelevant

[@rowni]

All I could think of was Judge Judy this whole video 😂😂😂

[@TTT-qg4gf]

Eisenhower didn’t oppose the brown case.

[@victoriathefinch4705]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg must live forever

[@kinpatu]

Victoria The Finch She's still in the US?!

[@Lingle-h1g]

She looks like she already has lived forever! Ted Cruz would be a good replacement for Ruth.

[@kinpatu]

Jerry Lingle Agreed. And the Senate would be happy to get rid of him. Everyone goes home happy.

[@snsr100]

Agree 100%

[@lukebeall5590]

Jerry fam wtf are you talking about he isn’t even in the judicial branch

[@shwemyatmyooo6755]

Hello notification squad! :D Last time I was this early the US still had a president tho

[@bbtb785]

All executive branch and judicial nominees -- except to the Supreme Court -- can be confirmed with a simple up-or-down vote rather than the previously required 60-vote supermajority.

[@sharath9893]

he needs to watch this

[@carboy101]

You'd think Eisenhower's biggest mistake was the Korean War.

[@12345676571]

He ended the Korean war, it started under Truman

[@paciic]

Yes TED-ed from TED Talk

[@Tristan-pg5ll]

How to get appointed? CONNECTIONS AND MORE CONNECTIONS.

[@mr.broGAME]

It made me honored and encouraged to see that a turkish born justice was appointed to the supreme court

[@mastersonogashira1796]

True justice is only carried out by time

[@mastersonogashira1796]

@miguelfranjul4416 Justice is only tangible if you give it time. Napoleon was seen as a demon by his peers, yet now we see him mostly as an ambitious man. Time will erase emotion, and what’s left is a more objective view

[@tifforo1]

It's a simple majority to confirm a justice if there's no filibuster.

[@teddyparham9495]

VERY INTERESTING! WHY IN AMERICA WITH THE HIGHEST COURTS IN THE LAND HAVE SEATS FILLED BY INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE NOT TRUE AMERICAN BORN? I BELIEVE I HEARD IT WAS SIX INDIVIDUALS. IF AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHY DO THEY ALLOW NON-AMERICANS DICTATE MUCH OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES? SHOULDN'T AMERICA BE GOOD ENOUGH TO PRODUCE AMERICANS THAT CAN BE WORTHY AND ALLOWED TO SIT ON THE BENCHES?

[@tajaicalip3825]

There should be another way to choose the judges. For centuries history has been proven that the people who pick these judges pick these judges for their personal services. judges should be chosen randomly without anyone knowing. I do not see how these people get offended when they are called illiterates. They see things that took place decades ago and do the same thing. No one receives change doing the EXACT same foul actions repeatedly. At the renee c. davidson court how can a judge say they are not defaming my character when I filed a restraining order on these people in my home. The judge did not grant the order knowing I was the only one on my order and fighting numerous people who came to my home illegally. But the same court judge at the renee c. davidson court gave a city attorney and other people restraining orders against me for collecting my evidence proving I'm innocent. That is not the court procedure or the description of a court judge. These people cannot be in a community and defame people names who never met or saw them before. Its time their addresses are posted. Its obvious until the da is removed from oakland we are going to have to fight these people.

[@TASmith10]

So... I get how this video wants to give a general intro to the system, that's unbiased, and can be used for all ages. That's great. I also noticed the "average judicial review time of 60 days." So, why no mention of the unprecedented obstruction of this system by Republicans, who blocked Obama's latest appointment for almost a year. It seems to me, so long as Republicans feel this was justified, there's nothing biased about simply telling the truth of what happened. You can give the Republicans' logic for their decision, if you want. I don't see how avoiding these very pertinent facts is educational, and I was really hoping you'd go into detail about how Republicans were able to delay the system for so long, and also what the ramifications are for a limited supreme court - what can I do, when it doesn't have all its members? Theoretically, how long can congress block an appointment? What if Clinton had won? Some Republicans had threatened to block an appointment for another four years. Is that really possible? I'd like to hear a legal expert weigh in.

[@niallhiggins2342]

Thomas Smith Just read the constitution, they can block any justice as long as they like. The president would be forced to nominate a justice the senate does approve of

[@cesaruy247]

If you want to hear a legal expert, watching a youtube video aint it

[@kurtismiller5451]

The most important position in our government. Nominations should be about what's right, not about one side winning. Should be divided to represent the population equally.

[@TrustYouMe]

“Hello, My Name's NINOOOOO!”

[@YasamnSifreleriPasswordsofLife]

Thanks...

[@hostiliscivitas]

Scalia died under mysterious circumstances.

[@aschachtner31]

Sure did. Watching closely what’s happing with Justice Clarence Thomas. First he’s hospitalized and now since they didn’t kill him off, they’re going after his wife’s texts and asking him to step down.

[@carultch]

How does the chief justice position get selected? Is it just a matter of being appointed at the same time as an existing chief justice's retirement or death? Is there any special qualification needed or generally expected for the chief justice, that isn't the case for associate justices in general? Do existing associate justices ever get promoted to chief justice? Or is it always a new appointee?

[@davidjones-vx9ju]

don't ask people on you tube .... google the government websites and research for yourself

[@carultch]

@@davidjones-vx9ju If you don't know the answer, don't bother responding.

[@davidjones-vx9ju]

@@carultch you must be new to youtube

[@Wootpie]

“Like the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There is no requirement that the Chief Justice serve as an Associate Justice, but 5 of the 17 Chief Justices have served on the Court as Associate Justices prior to becoming Chief Justice.” Basically, whenever there’s a vacancy in the seat of the Chief Justice, the president nominates them the same way as they do any other justice, but , they can nominate current associate judges as well.

[@emporoar7775]

If only presidents where appointed this way

[@claiborneeastjr4129]

I wish more would take their oath to uphold the Constitution more seriously. And, as you note, there are no requirements of any kind, which is unusual..

[@patrickgraham6306]

The Brown V. Board of Ed. was not a "liberal" ruling, it was a constitutional ruling, and therefore, conservative.

[@chromographia106]

Patrick Graham The 'conservatives' at the time were very against Brown in that case.

[@elderlyoogway]

That may be changing the meaning of the word 'conservative' to fall on your beliefs of what is right. As stated above, the actual conservatives were against (and nothing wrong in the fact that conservatives are fallible).

[@Midnight_Lumberjack]

Patrick Graham It can be hard to determine what is "liberal" vs "conservative" at times. A way I've found has helped me categorize them is: liberal being driven by change, constant progress towards what is hopefully a better future; conservative as being driven by the dependable and proven, making sure society remains structured and functional. My view on it at least, hope it helps.

[@NBD300]

Top notch infoemation Tedx

[@stevene6181]

I hope President Trump appoints a good judge.

[@charlemagen5356]

how was Scalia terrible? he interpreted the constitution based on HOW the Constitution was written not on what he wanted to hear like the left leaning insane judges.

[@elderlyoogway]

Even if he is troubled (which you're assuming), he is reasonable, you're not.

[@Tamizushi]

Scalia liked to claim he was interpreting the Constitution the way it was written but you'd be hard pressed to prove it with fact.

[@breannamay8800]

He's not president yet

[@stevene6181]

Breanna May oh yes he is sweetie ;)

[@ShaudaySmith]

great art and animations in this video.

[@njmudaliar]

So glad SCOTUS affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms in 2010. God bless the Second Amendment!

[@njmudaliar]

Aroon Parthasarathy What is your concern with the 2nd Amendment? Do you not believe in the human right to self-defense?

[@deadtree598]

Naveen So glad they recognized the right to marriage equality. No matter the couple's sexual orientation.

[@elderlyoogway]

I'm glad they recognized the right of marriage equality. Because it's logical to do so. A Supreme Court that don't recognize this should be banned from anything related to science and stick with power games.

[@destroyer-tz2mk]

3:00 "administer justice... and do equal right to the poor and the rich" The 5 justices who voted for New London in Kelo v. New London: 😅

[@mishaespinoza3900]

I hope Trump doesn't nominate someone too conservative.

[@sebwilkins]

Misha Espinoza probably his kids

[@AsirIset]

Well let's hope Pence has no say in the matter...

[@EchoL0C0]

Misha Espinoza Well, this is Scalia's replacement, so basically anyone will be at least a bit more liberal.

[@Lightitupp1]

Lets hope he does nominate someone conservative.

[@Tamizushi]

Trump is basically following his recommendations from the Heritage Foundation so expect an extremely conservative judge.

[@robinl4975]

I don’t understand how the US can keep this system with the supreme court. The judges shouldn’t be partisan, and shouldn’t be a judge for life. Make it a job a lawyer, who has served as a judge in a ”regular” court, can seek, and then be appointed by the house or senate. And put a term limit for 4 years or something.

[@sagestrings869]

It's designed slow change, justices can't be removed so influences from the past can still effect the rulings of the present. There should be a term limit for the supreme court however good luck getting any constitutional ammendments

[@maka8551]

@@sagestrings869 No there shouldnt tf

[@sagestrings869]

@@maka8551 why?

[@maka8551]

@@sagestrings869 They are appointed for life so that they can function without fear of political retribution. Since they are not elected they are not politicians in a political party. If they had terms or had to be elected it would defeat the entire check on the other two branches that they provide. This is the reason why every conservative justice threw out Trumps phony election lawsuits. Imagine if there were term-limits, they would bend to the will of Trump so as to not lose the next election, then he would have stole it and been re-elected. If an ultra left or right wing president appoints a judge and the first ruling the judge makes goes against the Presidents political belief there is nothing that can be done about it. This system is intentionally designed to free the Justices from childish political squabbling and allow them to make the best legal judgment they can. Wether something is popular or not is not for them to decide, it is lawful or not.

[@sagestrings869]

@@maka8551 if the justices we're being removed anyway regardless of what trump did, I doubt they would have let trump's election theft go through.

[@savedforh]

America is one constitutional and law enforcement icon for a nation

[@MrAntieMatter]

This seems interesting, I might actually check out the actual Ted talk.

[@pandaman9381]

The president is supposed to appoint one but congress can not do their job like how they havent for the last 8 years

[@edgarcia9784]

They are just staling, why let the president appoint a liberal judge when they are going to take control of the government in a few months. No compromise was met :/

[@pandaman9381]

Ed Garcia a few months? he died in february. if he died and obama was a repub they would put him in a second

[@aliensinnoh1]

Don't worry. Scalia was the most conservative member of the court, so him being replaced by another conservative when Trump takes power will just put the Supreme Court back to where it was before he died, the same Court that upheld Obamacare and legalized same-sex marriage.

[@pandaman9381]

***** im saying that if he was repub then they wouldnt care but because he is a demo they have their tidies in a bunch

[@pandaman9381]

William Stockhecker true

[@Paperclips4782]

I JUST handed in my power about this yesterday.. where was this video then 😭😭

[@jowardcabrera1186]

can you do a video about how the moon affect everything here on earth? thanks :)

[@saneperson7553]

Well in India the executive does not have much of a role in appointing Supreme Court judges it is done by collegium of judges of Supreme Court who recommends judges for elevation to sc and the executive have to oblige and the president then formally appoints him through oath And elevation is mainly done on basis of seniority so no favors can be shown...but every system as it's flaws

[@rejinkatel]

I think that is a very good system.

[@emergencyfood3543]

​@@rejinkatel the executive has a big sway in the appointment as any unfavourable candidates' files would simply be held up by the ministers and no responses given at all on the nomination sent by the SC of India.

[@Soundafek]

The flip of a coin or maybe Rock, Paper, Scissors determines who gets appointed.. :)

[@mulemuled3354]

There are 3 branches they all have roots and a over seeing eye must keep each of them in check

[@MrHarsh3600]

In India a collegium of 4 senior most judges of Supreme Court appoint other judges. Judges appoint other judges.

[@universalplayz7496]

Wouldn’t this make it extremely and I mean EXTREMELY easy to make a forever bias in 1 direction Like let’s say the current 4 senior judges have a particular view on something major what’s stopping them from constantly replacing whatever judge left with someone that holds the same view and that process repeating indefinitely?

[@user-ym5cg9kv3b]

We the people should have the right to vote in Supreme court's judges.

[@trangvophuong6919]

And that's how partisan politics gets involved. Supreme Court justices should be impartial, because politics has no place in any court of law. So Supreme Court justices should not be elected politically.

[@xei2694]

@@trangvophuong6919 Except Supreme Court Justices should do the right thing, and the people decide what's right. Politics has no place in any court of law? Everything is political. I was talking with ChatGPT about this asking why they're not elected by people, and it tried to tell me the if justices were voted in by people, that would influence their decisions. Well yeah, it would influence them to make the right decisions!

[@trangvophuong6919]

@@xei2694 Well, there's also a reason why we have judges in the first place. Or more accurately, there's a reason why we have law experts deciding cases instead of the general public. For example, here's a case. Can the people decide "whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the 'strong public policy' of the state whose law is displaced"? Here's another example. How should the people decide "whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a 'retaliatory intent' as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of 'retaliatory intent' is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof." My point is, the Supreme Court does not only decide important constitutional cases like the ones you've seen on the news. Many cases, like the ones I mentioned above, are never talked about because they deal with complex statutory interptetation. You cannot reasonably expect them to abide by what 330 million people think is correct or not. Plus, how would the Supreme Court even decide what the people's opinion is? Would they run a national poll? Is there an election where people vote on which side should win? Or does the people have a vote on "important" cases regarding constitutional rights? Doing that for every case heard at the Supreme Court would take forever. Do I think our current Supreme Court is perfect? No. But having them be elected by the people would mean that the composition, and therefore ideology, of the Supreme Court could rapidly shift every 4 years or more (depending on how long a justice's term would theoretically be). That would just turn the Supreme Court into a second Congress, and it would defeat the whole point of having a court in the first place. Plus, there are also constitutional issues with making the Supreme Court electable. Article II, Clause 2 of the Constitution says that the President "shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court". So, there would need to be a constitutional amendment for that, and I also highly doubt that any amendment for that would pass or be ratified. But who knows? Anything could happen.

[@TheCad135]

I'm no US citizen nor an expert in politics, but a single individual of the executive branch unilaterally getting to decide who is even to be considered for the US Supreme Court seems degenerative for the seperation of powers. In a country that is dominated by a two-party-system nominee rejection by simple majority eventually leads to configurations in which one party dictates new justices. Considering how often the US Congress relies on taking the President to court in attempts to oppose his over the decades steadily increasing power, it's like a build-in mechanic to delegate power away from the legislative branch to the President. Basically giving him opportunities to create a biased judical for life-time.

[@tifforo1]

It's a simple majority to confirm a justice IF there's no filibuster. The real problem is if a bunch of justices die during a single term. Especially if, even with the rather slow pace the legal system sometimes has, the court decides on something related to that President's policies during their presidency. Or after their presidency is over, for that matter.

[@TheCad135]

My bad, i'll fix that misinformation on my part if I can (Not that it's that big of a difference).

[@tifforo1]

Star Wasp The video, and your comment based on it, were correct. However, the use of the filibuster has become more and more common, and became almost a default response by Republicans to anything Obama (and the Democrats in Congress following his agenda) tried to do during the parts of his administration where Democrats had a majority in Congress. Eventually, the strangely named "nuclear option" was used to prevent filibusters from stalling certain types of confirmations, but the nuclear option did not apply to Supreme Court nominations, so they can still be filibustered. A filibuster, if people have the patience to continue it, can only be broken by a 60% vote in the Senate.

[@ScroogeMcWhat]

Majesty illuminare requiem Another way to spell it was Icolloumnous Locus But people forgot it and then everyone decided that it just didn’t fit doesn’t seem too things right now.

[@docmemphis]

"tax records" Welp, there's goes my opportunity at getting nominated.

[@kkheflin3]

LOL I'm sure you are terribly disappointed!

[@johncronin7875]

Presidential appointment - So no separation of power in reality.

[@RuanMighailPienaar]

One Name, Trey Gowdy!

[@Aiden_Muslim]

3:07 Yeah right

[@jisselaparicio7471]

Who else is here after the death of RBG

[@robloxpro947]

everybody

[@AugustTheStag]

How on earth is the House not involved in the decision?!!!

[@davidjones-vx9ju]

the constitution

[@poopa7642]

Because the house is the lower half, they shouldn’t be involved AT ALL.

[@allaboutaudrey7238]

I really want to be the supreme court justice lol

[@prosamuraigaming1972]

Same lol

[@GONZOMAF]

I thought this was about Star Wars because of the thumbnail

[@leolor9328]

“For life” is the most ridiculous and idiotic thought ever…

[@jghgiroot6735]

The "for life" part was ironically so they had zero outside political influence. I think what killed the protection from influence was the removal of 2/3rds majority needed for confirmation, so basically partisan judges could then be appointed because you only needed to vote across party lines to confirm justices.

[@leolor9328]

@@jghgiroot6735 oh wow that is sad

[@patrickgraham6306]

Clarence Thomas made an off hand remark, he did nothing more extreme than that.

[@4grammaton]

When I first saw the thumbnail I thought it was Count Dracula.

[@fireburner531]

Early crew , where are you?