Evaluate the view that the nomination and appointment process to the US Supreme Court is now a politically driven concept, not judicially based

(1) Point against my view

• Presidents select nominees whose judicial philosophies align with their political ideologies. Nominees are often chosen with the expectation that they will support certain policy outcomes, reflecting the President’s agenda.

(1) Example for point against my view

• The nomination of Coney Barrett in 2020. Barrett's nomination by President Trump was seen as a strategic move to solidify a conservative majority on the Court, especially following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett's conservative judicial philosophy was a key factor in her selection.

(1) Point for my view

• Nominees to the Supreme Court typically have strong legal backgrounds and qualifications, and presidents often consider their judicial temperament and experience alongside political considerations.

(1) Example for point for my view

• 8 of 9 current judges went to Ivy League school

• 6 have experience as a clerk for a previous justice

(2) Point against my view

• Senate hearings are highly politicised, focusing on nominees' potential impacts on controversial issues like abortion, gun rights, and healthcare. Confirmation votes often split along party lines, reflecting broader political divisions. Presidents have been able to nominate justices who are more likely to be confirmed by the Senate, especially when the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President.

(2) Example for point against my view

• Questioning by Cruz to KBJ on her thoughts on Critical Race Theory

• The confirmation hearing of Kavanaugh.

• Sen. Marsha Blackburn pressed Jackson to define the word "woman", which Jackson declined to do, stating: "I'm not a biologist."

• Of the last 5 justices appointed, all were opposed by more than 30 Senators.

(2) Point for my view

• While Senate hearings can be politically charged, their primary purpose is to assess the qualifications, experience, and judicial temperament of the nominee. Even during contentious hearings, significant attention is given to nominee’s professional background, ensuring that only qualified individuals are confirmed. Senate unlikely to confirm unqualified candidate, so president is limited.

(2) Example for point for my view

• Republican senators like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz grilled Jackson extensively on her sentencing record in child pornography cases when she was a federal district court judge.

• 8 of 9 current judges went to Ivy League school

• while KBJ was quizzed in person by senators for more than 24 hours over 3 days in 2022, there were additional 379 questions plus sub-questions she was asked to respond to in writing - explored (in huge detail) her judicial philosophy and concerns about potential bias.

(3) Point against my view

• Interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum exert significant influence on the nomination process, advocating for nominees who align with their preferred policy positions.

(3) Example for point against my view

• During nomination process, Biden received letter led by the courts-focused Demand Justice, where the 12 groups nudge him to nominate someone with a background working as a public defender or in civil rights.

(3) Point for my view

• While interest groups may advocate for certain nominees, their influence is not determinative, and senators ultimately have the responsibility to assess a nominee's qualifications and suitability for the Court.

(3) Evidence for point for my view

• In April 2022, KBJ confirmed by a 53-47 vote