Nominating the Justices of the Supreme Court a Comparative Study of the United States and Sweden
Author
Summary, in English
This thesis compares the process for selecting Supreme Court justices in the United States and Sweden from the time their Supreme Courts were established to the present. Both courts were established in 1789 and both were designed to function within broader governments generally organized in accordance with Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Bréde et de Montesquie’s theory on separation of powers. First, this thesis chronologically analyzes how the Supreme Court justices are selected and appointed in the United States and Sweden. In the United States, the President nominates the Judges of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. Initially, that process was confidential; today, the Senate hearings are televised across the country and interest groups contribute to the politicization of American Supreme Court nominations. In Sweden, the King confidentially notified and appointed the Justices of the Supreme Court based on the Instrument of Government 1809. Even though the Swedish Government took over Supreme Court appointments in 1975, a confidential notification process continued until the adoption of the Appointing Permanent Judges Act (2010:1390) in 2011. Now the Judges Proposals Board administers the recruitment of the Swedish Supreme Court justices with open applications and provides the Government with recommendations.
After analyzing each country’s development of appointing Supreme Court justices, a comparative analysis reveals the observed similarities and differences between the two countries. The main similarities identified include that the executive power appoints the Supreme Court justices, impartial committees evaluate the nominees qualifications, and public insight increases over the selection process. On the other hand, the magnitude of power the executive branch maintains over the Supreme Court justices selection process differs between the two countries. Ultimately, this thesis finds that the Judges Proposals Board equates to the functions performed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association.
After analyzing each country’s development of appointing Supreme Court justices, a comparative analysis reveals the observed similarities and differences between the two countries. The main similarities identified include that the executive power appoints the Supreme Court justices, impartial committees evaluate the nominees qualifications, and public insight increases over the selection process. On the other hand, the magnitude of power the executive branch maintains over the Supreme Court justices selection process differs between the two countries. Ultimately, this thesis finds that the Judges Proposals Board equates to the functions performed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association.
Department/s
Publishing year
2014
Language
English
Full text
- Available as PDF - 387 kB
- Download statistics
Document type
Student publication for Bachelor's degree
Topic
- Law and Political Science
Keywords
- Comparative law
- legal history
- Supreme Court
- United States
Supervisor
- Per Nilsén (Universitetslektor)