The United States Constitution does not specify the mandatory requirements for selecting a candidate or candidates for the Supreme Court, but tradition since the nation's founding establishes rules dictated by common law based on precedent. Therefore, although the nomination is sometimes vitiated by political considerations, it is only proper and objective to base on the experience and professional and personal qualities of the candidate the standards by which the US Senate should abide in its approval or rejection.
The prevailing norms emanate from the conditions established by the first president of the United States, George Washington:
1) Strong support and defense of the Constitution;
2) Active participation in the public life of any of the states of the nation or at the federal level;
3) Long previous experience in other courts; and,
4) Evident love for the country.
Historically, the Senate has also considered the following requirements in the selection process:
1) Proven rulings neutrality;
2) Impartiality;
3) Deep knowledge of the laws of the country;
4) Ability to clearly write court opinions;
5) Personal integrity; and,
6) Good physical and mental condition.
Although WITH ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BEING EQUAL it is correct to select a candidate who contributes to balance the personal characteristics, race, or sex of the rest of the Supreme Court judges, these should not be taken into account as determining requirements if the other six requirements mentioned are not compared in equal or superior conditions with the merits of other possible candidates.
It is outrageous that the sex and race of the candidate who will replace Justice Stephen Breyer are conditions announced in advance as an exclusive prerequisite for the nomination and subsequent election of his replacement, marginalizing others who may better meet the requirements of merit, impartiality, experience, neutrality, etc., as conditions duly expected to be part of a Supreme Court justice's background.
Topic Author
