e
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, a process that usually carries
few problems but is by no means automatic. Once appointed, the Judges are there for life
(or until they resign), but are totally independent. A President can (and does) appoint
people of the same ideological persuasion, meaning that he can extend his influence on
the upper echelons of American politics after he is no longer President. Judges are reliant
on the President to nominate them but, once appointed, they are free of the President.
The Rehnquist Court has been labeled contemporary by all standards in
comparison due to the stark contrast of the expansive nationalism of the Warren Court.
Since 1991, the Rehnquist Court has revived the post-new deal ideals of Federalism.
Supported by the majority of the justices (O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, and
Thomas) in most cases, Rehnquist is effectively bringing the ideals of judicially policed
system of dual federalism to the Supreme Court; which is not supported by the public.
(Conlan, De Chantal Summer 2001) Although the US Supreme Court is supposed to have
no role in politics the Bush v. Gore case cemented the fact that the Court does play a
major role in American politics and policy-making. Arguably the biggest affect the
Supreme Court has ever played in American politics was when it was brought in to
determine the outcome of the presidential election of 2000 between Bush and Gore; in
which the US Supreme Court did in fact reverse the Florida supreme court ruling in favor
of Bush. If elected President, Gore promised to remove the majority of the Court by
retiring Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor. The Rehnquist Court has been labeled
contemporary by all standards in comparison due to the stark contrast of the expansive
nationalism of the Warren Court. Since 1991, the Rehnquist Court has revived the post-
new deal ideals of Federal...