The Constitution of the United States lays out our national government in three parts or "branches." These branches are the legislative branch, which is comprised of the two houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), the executive branch, which is comprised of the office of the President and his cabinet, and the judicial branch, which is comprised of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these three branches, the judicial branch is unique. It is the only branch of government in our democratic system which has members in public office who were not elected by the people. Instead, the Constitution instructs that federal justices be appointed to their positions by the President of the United States, with approval the approval of the senate1. And, in most cases, when a fed

Such inferior courts as Congress may choose to establish

Today, however, Marshall may not have fared so well. Due to the intense media scrutiny presidents and senators and even Supreme Court nominees face today, Marshall may have quickly been seen as too troublesome to ever be confirmed and his nomination may have been withdrawn before any hearings could even take place. After all, Thurgood Marshall often told jokes about what black people would do to white people after the "revolution", he expressed disdain for settled legal precedents, and he had even openly questioned the fairness of the Constitution itself14. These things would have undoubtedly been played over the airwaves and debated endlessly among pundits until the senate would have made it clear to the president that Marshall would not be confirmed, and the president would have felt like he had no choice but to withdraw Marshall's nomination. In fact, this very thing happened with the nomination of Harriet Miers. In an earlier time, before the days of 24/7 media, Miers's nomination may have actually had a chance of being successful.

Federal justices could not be concerned with the changing tides of public opinion, they had to rise above it. Otherwise, decisions could easily be made that were not in the best interests of the nation. Public opinion, after all, changes so quickly and so easily, that a decision made today designed to please the public (and ensure re-election, had the judiciary been elected), might be one that was not what the country really needed in the long run and would end up harming the nation later. Therefore, it was vital that the judiciary be made independent.

Presidents want to be able to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and hope that a vacancy will arise during their time in office. This is because presidents have the opportunity to choose justices whose ideals and opinions most closely match their own. Because these ideals and opinions play an important part in how an individual justice interprets the Constitution, which is the primary role of a federal justice, if a president chooses a justice with opinions closely matching his own, then the president knows that justice, once on the Supreme Court, is likely to continue handing down decisions that the president would approve of. In this way, because a federal justice has his or her position for life and will be on the bench long after the president who appointed him or her is out of office, it is a way for a president to leave his stamp on the federal government in the form of a long-lasting legacy. The president's voice can still be heard through the justice he selected.

While presidents have always had to think about popular opinion, the opinions of the senate, and their own political fortunes when selecting justices for nomination to the federal courts, it does seem that in this modern world of television and the internet, inundated with media and opinions of every type voiced over the airwaves in an almost constant stream of political commentary, that the politics of federal judicial selection have become even more harsh, more unforgiving, and more difficult to manage. To see the difference that the modern media age has made, take a look at the confirmation process of Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall was the first African-American to serve on the Supreme Court, and his confirmation to that post was not an easy process. It was fraught with political intrigue. Marshall's nomination to the Supreme Court was an affront to established tradition and a challenge to the prejudices of the times. There were many across the country who did not want to see an African-American on the Supreme Court, and the senators in Congress at the time were worried that their constituencies would vote them out of office if they dared to confirm Marshall. As a result, Marshall's confirmation was contentious, with nearly every decision Marshall ever made

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Articles Confederation, President United, Bader Ginsberg, Harriet Miers, America Depression, Thurgood Marshall, Constitutional Convention, supreme court, President Bush, David McKay, federal judiciary, federal justices, federal justice, federal judicial, founding fathers, federal judicial selection, justices supreme, justices supreme court, judicial selection, selection process, judicial branch, judicial selection process, supreme court justices, william lasser 111,
Approximate Word count = 3481
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page double spaced)