How do US Supreme Court justices get appointed? - Peter Paccone

  • 🎬 Video
  • ℹ️ Published 5 years ago
preview_player
UCsooa4yRKGN_zEE8iknghZA


There’s a job out there with a great deal of power, pay, prestige, and near-perfect job-security. And there’s only one way to be hired: get appointed to the US Supreme Court. But how do US Supreme Court Justices actually get that honor? Peter Paccone outlines the difficult process of getting a seat on the highest bench in the country.

Lesson by Peter Paccone, animation by Globizco.

💬 Comments
Author

To be judged by the ultimate judges, Time & History.
Best closing line

Author — Abdul

Author

For those curious, they have the position for life to keep them from being affected by outside politics. Because they don't have to worry about campaigning, or even keeping the public happy, they can interpret the Constitution to the best of their ability's with no outside bias, only their own.

Author — That1Guy

Author

Please do more videos like these (explaining political systems, explaining political roles, the constitution, past presidents, how other countries' politics work, etc)

Author — Val Okouneva

Author

This what I hope to do when I'm older. Wish me luck!

Author — Annie Thrash

Author

To become a Supreme Court Justice would be a great Honor, God Bless all 9 of them! Republican or Democrat

Author — High Priest

Author

by the ultimate judges. Time and history."

Time will tell how history will judges.

Author — pacific994

Author

A very clear and informative civics lesson. Thank you!

Author — dannypal123

Author

It would be so nice if politicians just... did their jobs well once.
Just a single time.
Please?

Author — Bree

Author

This actually seems like a pretty crazy system.

Author — eatcarpet

Author

Very well explained, propre and easy ! Subscribed

Author — Hans Nguwa

Author

So... I get how this video wants to give a general intro to the system, that's unbiased, and can be used for all ages. That's great. I also noticed the "average judicial review time of 60 days." So, why no mention of the unprecedented obstruction of this system by Republicans, who blocked Obama's latest appointment for almost a year. It seems to me, so long as Republicans feel this was justified, there's nothing biased about simply telling the truth of what happened. You can give the Republicans' logic for their decision, if you want. I don't see how avoiding these very pertinent facts is educational, and I was really hoping you'd go into detail about how Republicans were able to delay the system for so long, and also what the ramifications are for a limited supreme court - what can I do, when it doesn't have all its members? Theoretically, how long can congress block an appointment? What if Clinton had won? Some Republicans had threatened to block an appointment for another four years. Is that really possible? I'd like to hear a legal expert weigh in.

Author — Thomas Smith

Author

i am trying to understand this, if you have a republican in power for years and years, and they get questioned by the committee so see how they may vote, then pass on a recommendation (I have no idea how much weight this holds) then isn't there the risk that they are constantly pushing their owns views in such cases? Could someone kindly explain

Author — AllAtousa

Author

Thank you, I never learned how this works.

Author — Softlyblushed

Author

America is one constitutional and law enforcement icon for a nation

Author — NOEL TUMANJONG

Author

I recently had jury duty and that was very interesting

Author — sacredbanana

Author

Dear Ted-ed, could you please bring back your series of "history vs. X" but this time of late President Marcos of the Philippines. It's a very relevant issue right now here and would like to know the thought of non-filipinos that view it from a non-subjective standpoint. Thanks!

Author — Dom Torres

Author

I really want to be the supreme court justice lol

Author — All About Audrey

Author

I'm no US citizen nor an expert in politics, but a single individual of the executive branch unilaterally getting to decide who is even to be considered for the US Supreme Court seems degenerative for the seperation of powers.
In a country that is dominated by a two-party-system nominee rejection by simple majority eventually leads to configurations in which one party dictates new justices.

Considering how often the US Congress relies on taking the President to court in attempts to oppose his over the decades steadily increasing power, it's like a build-in mechanic to delegate power away from the legislative branch to the President.
Basically giving him opportunities to create a biased judical for life-time.

Author — Star Wasp

Author

The Brown V. Board of Ed. was not a "liberal" ruling, it was a constitutional ruling, and therefore, conservative.

Author — Patrick Graham

Author

Apparently you can also block appointments until someone of your party takes the presidency. Seems like what the founders had in mind.

Author — Lemonducky