Reforming Judicial Appointments: Depoliticizing the Bench

Campaign Briefing: Decoupling Partisan Politics

Foundations

October 6, 2025

I. Introduction: The Judiciary at Risk

The federal judiciary was designed as the neutral guardian of the Constitution—a branch insulated from electoral passions and entrusted with the fair interpretation of law. But the modern process for nominating, vetting, and confirming judges has become partisan, performative, and corrosive to public trust.

This candidacy begins with a clear assertion: If we fail to remove political motives from the judicial appointment process, we compromise not only our courts but our constitutional legitimacy. This campaign makes the restoration of judicial neutrality a central priority of executive reform.

II. The Presidential Role and the Constitution

Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President shall nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint judges to the federal bench. This is a constitutional responsibility, not a political instrument.

Historically, the judiciary has served as:

• A counterweight to transitory political majorities, and

• A stabilizing interpreter of the law, not a tool of political ideology.

In modern practice, however, judicial nominations have become policy battlegrounds, with nominees often selected to deliver predictable ideological rulings. This undermines the role of the courts as impartial adjudicators.

III. Campaign Commitments for Judicial Appointment Reform

Drawing from “Keeping Politics Out of Government Operations – Combined Documents”, this candidacy enacts the following structural reforms to remove political influence from the federal judicial nomination process:

A. Judicial Appointments Council (JAC)

• A permanent, independent Judicial Appointments Council (JAC) will be established, composed of:

  • Retired Article III judges,

  • Former state and federal prosecutors and defenders,

  • Constitutional scholars from multiple jurisprudential traditions.

• The JAC will:

  • Identify, evaluate, and recommend judicial candidates to the President based exclusively on professional qualification and judicial merit.

  • Provide no fewer than five certified candidates for Supreme Court nominations, and no fewer than three candidates for any other federal judicial vacancy.

  • Maintain a rolling ranked list of candidates previously submitted to the Senate for potential future vacancies.

B. Merit-Based Qualification and Appellate Performance Review

• Every nominee must:

  • Have at least 15 years of legal practice or judicial experience,

  • Demonstrate judicial impartiality and ethical consistency,

  • Fully disclose all public writings, opinions, and organizational affiliations.

• In addition, each nominee will be evaluated on appellate performance, including:

  • Number of decisions upheld on appeal,

  • Decisions overturned based on reinterpretation of law or legal evolution, and

  • Decisions overturned due to misapplication or misinterpretation of established precedent.

A candidate frequently overturned due to substantive legal misapplication will not automatically be disqualified—but such patterns will be carefully scrutinized and may weigh heavily against their nomination.

C. Public Nomination Justification Memoranda

• For each nominee, the President will issue a formal justification memorandum submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee and published publicly.

• The memorandum will explain:

  • The nominee’s qualifications and judicial record,

  • The rationale for selection over other certified candidates,

  • The anticipated institutional value to the federal judiciary.

D. Strict Prohibition on Political Intermediaries

• The President will reject all candidate slates or shortlists submitted by political organizations, advocacy groups, or ideological institutions.

• Nominees affiliated with organizations that require loyalty pledges, partisan endorsements, or policy alignment will be deemed ineligible.

IV. Senate Engagement and Oversight Reform

The Senate must reclaim its role as a deliberative body concerned with constitutional stewardship, not political leverage. This campaign supports the following realignments:

A. Utilization of Nonpartisan Consultation and Removal of Geographic Courtesy

• Traditional “geographic courtesy,” in which a single senator or pair of senators could block a judicial nominee for reasons of personal or political disagreement, will no longer be recognized as a valid veto mechanism.

• Instead, the process will require that senatorial concerns be presented openly before the full Judiciary Committee or the Senate at large, where their merits can be debated in the public record.

• Nonpartisan consultation will be employed in evaluating judicial needs and regional considerations, without ceding unilateral appointment blocking authority to individual senators.

B. Ending the Use of Partisan Litmus Tests

• Senators will be encouraged—by example and by process design—to refrain from imposing partisan or ideological litmus tests during confirmation hearings.

C. Establishment of an Apolitical Senate Vetting Bureau

• A new apolitical Senate Vetting Bureau must be established to:

  • Produce standardized background reports on all nominees,

  • Conduct uniform conflict-of-interest evaluations,

  • Offer neutral assessments of judicial temperament and alignment with constitutional principles.

• Reports will be accessible to all Senators equally.

D. Public Access and Restrictions on Private Confirmation Discussions

• Upon public nomination, each nominee will be prohibited by Executive Order from engaging in any closed-door meetings regarding their confirmation.

• The sole exception shall be matters involving national defense or classified intelligence that are germane to judicial service.

  • In such cases, the Senators conducting such interviews must formally notify the Executive Branch of the national security basis for the private discussion.

  • An Executive Branch attorney will be present to ensure that the conversation remains strictly limited to approved national defense content.

• All other senatorial interviews and consultations with nominees must occur on the public record in their entirety.

“No court built in secrecy can preserve public confidence. Every meeting matters—and every meeting will be known.”

V. Judicial Independence After Nomination

To ensure that the appointment process cements independence, not obligation, the following protocols will be adopted:

A. Mutual Affidavits Affirming Constitutional Independence

• Each judicial nominee will be required to submit an affidavit affirming that:

  • No case outcomes will be influenced by or discussed with the Executive Branch,

  • The nominee’s loyalty is to the Constitution, not to the appointing administration,

  • They accept the burden of protecting judicial independence and public confidence,

  • In the case of Supreme Court nominees,  that the successful nominee will, at all times during service, comport all professional behavior with the Rules of Professional Conduct for Federal Judges and consistent with the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

• The President will issue a reciprocal affidavit to each nominee, committing:

  • To honor judicial independence in all matters,

  • To refrain from contact or commentary that might be perceived as influencing future decisions,

  • To defend the judiciary publicly and institutionally from political interference.

VI. Special Protocol for Supreme Court Nominations

Given the enduring national impact of Supreme Court appointments, the following specific measures, In addition to the requirements of the above sections “Merit-Based Qualification and Appellate Performance Review” and “Judicial Independence After Nomination” above;

 will apply:

• The JAC will submit no fewer than five certified candidates for any Supreme Court vacancy.

• All candidates must:

  • Be under age 65 at the time of nomination,

  • Demonstrate national-level leadership in constitutional interpretation or judicial integrity,

  • Have earned credibility in prior academic, judicial, or public roles.

• The President will be bound to select from the JAC’s certified list, unless extraordinary cause is publicly documented and reviewed by an independent legal panel composed jointly of Senators and Executive Branch legal officers.

VII. Strategic Takeaways for the Campaign

1. Public confidence begins with public process. Judicial selection must be both merit-driven and transparent.

2. The Executive and Legislative branches must share in depoliticizing confirmations.

3. Independence is not assumed—it is declared, affirmed, and enforced.

“If judges are to defend the Constitution, they must never be beholden to the politics of their appointment. From now on, we will nominate them in daylight, evaluate them in daylight, and defend them in daylight—because democracy only thrives in the open.”

 “We are building a judiciary not for any political party, but for our people. Judges must not serve ideology—they must serve the Constitution, and they must know that the President who appointed them expects nothing more—and nothing less.”

“We must no longer allow the judiciary to be shaped by political favor or ideological gatekeeping. In a healthy democracy, justice is not predictable by party—it is dependable by principle.”