Carp Chapter 6: Federal Judges

District Judges (background characteristics)

o Most have been judges at the state or local level
o A bit more than half attended elite universities
o About half had some experience on the bench at some point, and more
than 4/10 have served as a public prosecutor
o They tend to come from families with a tradition of judicial and public
service
o Historically more common for white men to be district judges, although

now (Obamas term) more women and minorities are being appointed
o Generally an elite group
Appeals Court Judges (background characteristics)
o Even more likely to have previous judicial experience than district judges
o At least in recent years (Clinton, Obama), more minorities and women are
being selected
o Economically blessed67% of Obamas picks had a net worth of $1

million or more at the start of their term

Supreme Court Justices (background characteristics)
o Majority come from politically active families
o Overwhelmingly Protestant groups
o Traditionally white men, but this is evolving
o All had legal training, and many served as corporation attorneys
o More often recruited from the ranks of the judiciary rather than from the
political arena
Formal and Informal Qualifications of Federal Judges
o Formal
There arent any!
o Informal
Professional Competence
Custom to appoint lawyers who have distinguished

themselves politically
Expected to meet a reasonable level of professional

competence
Political Qualifications
In some cases judgeship may be a reward for major service
to the party in power or to the president or senator

May go to a reasonably active member, not necessarily

someone who made a party service the central focus of a

lifetime
Self-Selection
Some have discreet campaigns
Most dont seek out judgeship actively, as this is seen as
kind of obnoxious
Element of Luck
Tons of variables in the judgeship process, so a lot of it

boils down to luck

Good example is Carroll Switzer, who was appointed

because of a random encounter with President Truman

Federal Selection Process & Its Participants
o The president makes all nominations, with due consultation with White
House staff, the attorney generals office, senators, and other politicos.
FBI usually does a background track too
o The President
Shows much more personal investments in appointments to the

Supreme Court vs. the lower courts

Usually defers to senators for federal judge appointments

(senatorial courtesy)
Senatorial courtesy doesnt apply to appellate court appointments,
although presidents usually defer to senators of their party from

states that make up the appellate court circuit

President might make recess appointments, which expire at the end

of their next session. Usually a political move

o Department of Justice
Aka the attorney general and the deputy attorney general
Mostly just screen the candidates
o State and Local Party Leaders
Are usually consulted more often when neither senator is from the
presidents political party
o Interest Groups
Often lobby either for or against judicial nominations
Can affect public opinion about Supreme Court nominees, which
therefore can have a big effect on SC nominees
o American Bar Association

Group that declares candidates as not qualified, qualified, or very

qualified
Stereotyped as a group of business-oriented corporation attorneys

who generally are more traditional/conservative

White males more likely to get the stamp of approval
President usually takes the rating into consideration, Obama
putting more focus on the organization than Bush, because the
rating can help senators feel more comfortable that theyre voting
for a qualified candidate (presuming they get the OK from the

ABA)
o Senate Judiciary Committee
Makes recommendations to the senate as a whole
Screen individuals who have already been nominated
Have informal conversations with the candidates
Can affect the selection process in many ways: can delay it; flat out
disapprove of people; etc.
Historically Southern and conservative flavor
o The Senate
Must approve the candidate by a majority vote
Usually the senate goes along with the presidents choice unless

overwhelmingly strong reasons exist to the contrary

For district judges, the norm of senatorial courtesy has prevailed
Nominations for minorities take longer
Judicial Socialization Process
o No formal training procedures
o Usually new judges learn the ropes/get help from more senior, experienced
judges
o New SC judges typically defer to senior associates, and write fewer

majority and dissenting opinions

o Formal trial judges appear to make the transition with fewer scars
Retirement and Removal of Judges
o Only way they can be removed from the bench is by impeachment
(indictment by the House) and conviction by the Senate
o Outright removal of judges is a pretty rare event
o In the case of a gray area of misconduct, the Judicial Councils Reform
and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act come into play
o Judicial Conduct and Disability Act: basically creates a statutory
complaint procedure against judges, but most of the complaints dont

amount to much, sometimes just force the judge to apologize or resign

from a board. Its apparently having some impact but its effects cant be
measured with much precision because of the confidential nature of the

process
Disability of Federal Judges
o Since 1984 federal judges have been permitted to retire with full pay and
benefits under the rule of eightywhen the sum of a judges age and
number of years on the bench is eighty
o Often times judges plan their resignation to occur when their party
controls the presidency so they can be replaced by a jurist of similar
political and judicial orientation