More 15 markers for Unit 4

9. To what extent are parties the most significant influence on voting in Congress?
Polarisation & leadership	Parties in recent years have become increasingly polarised which means that members have been pressured into toeing a specific party policy line – this is most evident in the Republican Party from the Tea Party who have been pressuring many Republicans to toe a specific policy line, even John Boehner who has been described as the ‘prisoner of the extreme wing of his party’, so the party remains a huge factor in influencing voting. Also, the party leadership plays a big role as was seen by John Boehner’s purge of 3 committee members from the House Budget Committee which many within the GOP saw as a ‘warning’ to other Republicans that the party leadership is watching peoples votes. So even if members of Congress may not want to vote with the party, they may fear the consequences of not doing so. In 2013 House Republicans voted with their caucus an average 92% of the time and  Senate Democrats voted among themselves 94% of the time.
Constituents	Arguably members of Congress vote according to their constituents wishes more than they do with the party. The party cannot remove them from office but a Congress persons constituents can, so members of Congress vote in accordance to what their constituents want and of course because they seek re-election. Many Republicans in 2010 claimed that the reason they voted against Obamacare was because they had a mandate from their constituents to bring down the government debt and prevent any tax hikes.
The administration	Voting in Congress is also greatly influenced by the wishes of the president. This usually happens after the State of the Union address in which the President standing at the bully pulpit sets out the legislative agenda, recommending legislation to members of Congress. In 2015 Obama ordered Congress to work towards eliminating campaign finance loopholes and work towards cyber security. Much of Congress’s work therefore will be dedicated to the legislation proposed by the President.
Pressure Groups	As Philip Stern illustrates in ‘Best Congress Money Can Buy’, through campaign finance pressure groups can effectively ‘buy’ influence and a Congress persons vote. It isn’t just through campaign finance that pressure groups can influence members of Congress to vote in a particular way but also through employing lobbyists to convince Congressmen to support their cause. A recent example of this was when AIPAC sent out lobbyists to every Congressmen in the wake of resumed negotiations with Iran.

10. How much power do party leaders exert in Congress?
Obamacare	Party votes since the ‘Republican revolution’ in 1994 have been on the rise, in 2013 for instance Republicans in the House voted with their party 92% of the time. Party leaders power was most evident from Republican opposition to Obamacare in 2010 which was virtually universal in the House with every single (178) Republican voting against it, this highlights how party leaders exert a lot of power in getting people to toe a specific policy line set out by the party establishment.
Government shutdown 2013	The 2013 government shutdown illustrated how party leaders have lost control over their own party in Congress, namely the Republicans to the Tea Party insurgency. The party leaders in Congress have had very little control over the Tea Party insurgency who are very obstructionist and seek no compromise with the Democrats whatsoever, this was most evidently seen through the 2013 government shutdown. Even the Tea Party tried to win over and pressure House Speaker John Boehner and Majority leader Eric Cantor into supporting the shutdown but they refused. The fact the shutdown went ahead regardless epitomises the loss of control over the party from party leaders.
PATRIOT Act	In recent events as key provisions of the PATRIOT Act were set to expire on the 1st June (such as the one which allows for the NSA to run mass phone data collection programs) Congress witnessed a decline in the power of party leaders. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader sought to get Republicans to vote in favour of renewing key provisions of the Act, however, several younger Republicans who were elected post-9/11 opposed such attempts by McConnell in getting them to toe the party line. Rand Paul, Jerry Moran, Mark Kirk, Pat Roberts, Mike Lee are just a few Senators among many more who opposed its renewal.
Boehner’s purge	John Boehner quietly purged three House members from key committee posts who were seen as being too fiscally conservative to party establishment’s wishes. Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash were removed from the House Budget Committee and David Schweikert was removed from the House Financial Services committee. Many saw this as a stark warning from the party leadership that party leaders are watching how their party’s members vote and if they’re not in line with the party leaders wishes then there will be consequences. This ability for Boehner to quietly purge members from key committee posts because they were too fiscally conservative highlights how powerful party leaders truly are.

11. To what extent are the Senate and the House of Representatives equal in power?
Concurrent powers Equal	Both Senate and House of Representatives have got equal power in passing, amending and blocking legislation. Both houses rely on each other in order to pass legislation, once legislation is passed in one chamber then it must rely on the other chamber to pass it also. For example, few weeks ago the House of Representatives passed a bill renewing key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, however, in the Senate that bill was blocked. Other concurrent powers include declaration of war, overriding presidents vetoes and initiating constitutional amendments. Both have the power of investigation through its congressional committees they investigate and scrutinize governments departments, for instance, it was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that investigated and published the CIA torture report and it was the House Select Committee on Benghazi which scrutinised Hilary Clinton’s poor handling of the Benghazi attacks in 2012
Senate filibuster Unequal	The Senate has the power to initiate a filibuster whereby a Senator literally talks a bill to death by remaining standing and talking for as long as possible in order to delay or kill off a bill. In 2013 Rand Paul filibustered the appointment of John O. Brennan to the position of CIA director for 12 hours and 53 minutes and there have also been pseudo-filibusters which are more like long speeches to delay a vote such as Ted Cruz’s filibuster against Obamacare for 21 hours and 19 minutes and Rand Paul also filibustered a bill this year which sought to renew the PATRIOT Act for over 10 hours.
Senate’s exclusive powers Unequal	As an exclusive power the Senate is able to ratify a President’s treaties by a two-third majority, in 2010 the Senate voted 71-26 to ratifying the START treaty. Another exclusive power of the Senate is confirm the appointments made by the President to any key positions such as posts in the federal bureaucracy, Supreme Court and Cabinet by a simple majority. Most recently the Senate confirmed the appointment of Loretta Lynch to the position of Attorney General by a 56-43 vote. The Senate also launches the trial to determine whether the impeached individual is guilty and a two-third majority is required to remove them from office.
House’s exclusive power Unequal	The House also has a range of exclusive powers such as its ability to begin the impeachment process of any member of the executive and judicial branches and has been used in 19 times in total – the most recent being in 2010 on federal judge Thomas Porteous. If the Electoral College is deadlocked the House can elect the President but this has only been done twice in 1800 and 1824.

12. What is ‘pork-barrel politics’ and what is its significance in Congress?
Pork barrel politics refers to an instance whereby federal funds are attached to a bill for projects within a Congress persons district which could aid in their re-election. Such ‘projects’ can refer to a range of things such as building bridges like the Alaska ‘bridge to nowhere’. The more ‘pork’ obtained by members of Congress influences the high incumbency rates in elections. Earmarks are one example of pork-barrel politics.
Career politicians	Pork-barrel politics helps in the creation of ‘career politicians’ in Washington who only seek to gain re-election and put local issues at the forefront over national issues and this has contributed to an image of a dysfunctional Congress because politicians are too pre-occupied with local concerns. This is seen by the excessive use of earmarks by certain members of Congress such as Jim Moran who’s total earmarks is at $36 million and John Murtha who’s been known as ‘the king of pork’ secured almost over $200 million. This has led to members of Congress to focus too much on pleasing their constituents and hoping for re-election rather than focusing on the long-term consequences of pork-barreling such as the issue with the government debt which is becoming increasingly difficult to reduce with the amount of pork and stands at over $17 trillion at the moment.
Incumbency	Pork-barrel politics aids in the electoral prospects of members of Congress and helps them get re-elected. If members of Congress are seen attaching a lot of ‘pork’ to bills to fund projects in their local district, such as Mitch McConnell’s pork costing $2.2billion to fund a river project in his home state of Kentucky, then they appeal more to their constituents and thus, stand a better chance at being re-elected and this is seen through the high incumbency rates, in 2014 in the House the incumbency was at 95% and 82% in the Senate. The concept of ‘bringing home the bacon’ in forms of local government projects for the electorate highlights how effective a representative is to their constituents
Incoherent legislation	Pork barrel politics has contributed to the creation of incoherent and inconsistent legislation as the variety of earmarks riding on each bill collects a lot of different interests as most congressmen seek to bring bacon back to their own state or district and thus, this causes a lot of conflict when shaping a bill. Pork barrel politics decorates legislation with unnecessary amendments and thus, overloads Congress with bills that lack focus and have lost its original intention. This was most obviously seen in the bill passed in 2013 to end the government shutdown which sought to raise the debt ceiling but ended up being decorated with a lot of pork such as $450million for rebuilding projects in flood-struck Colorado, McConnell’s projects outlined above, and also agencies fighting wildfires got $636 million.
Banned earmarks	Perhaps pork-barrel politics is no longer significant given the fact that as House Speaker, John Boehner has worked closely with Obama in banning earmarks. Having never requested any pork-barrel in his tenure in the House, Boehner has long been against earmarks and initially banned it in 2012 but the ban has now been continued through to the 114th Congress and so members of Congress are no longer able to ‘bring pork home’ for their constituents and thus, the significance of pork-barrel politics ceases to exist today.

13. Why do only a small percentage of bills introduced into Congress become law?
Presidential veto	The last stage in the legislative process lies with the President and he has a final say on whether a bill becomes law. The President can issue a regular veto and thus, send the bill back to Congress or can do a pocket veto which occurs during the time Congress are out of session. The President has already vetoed the Keystone Pipeline
Committee Stage	The second stage in the legislative process is the committee stage whereby the House Speaker refers a bill to a committee and it is in the committee stage that bills can be pigeon holed until they expire (pigeon holing is a term not used very often anymore and has been replaced by ‘bottle up’). For example, President Bush’s Clear Skies bill was kept bottled up by the Democrats in 2005 until it expired. Similarly in 2013 the House GOP adopted a new strategy to bottle up revenue bills until a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code is finished. In November 2014 it emerged that over 300 bills had been passed in the House but not a single one of those bills had been brought up for debate in the Senate and were bottled up instead.
House Speaker	The House Speaker can refuse to act upon a bill after its been passed in the Senate. This was seen through the Gang of 8 Bill which passed in the Senate in June 2013 but since then John Boehner has refused to bring it up for debate and as a result, the bill has ultimately stayed in the House since then and failed.
Congress	How quickly or how many bills come to law is down to the composition of Congress. In a time of increasing polarisation with a Republican stronghold in Congress and a Democrat President in the White House, there’s been a lack of bipartisanship from both sides in many policy areas and as a result, very little has actually been done. 2013 for instance was the least productive legislative year due to consistent gridlock and even a government shutdown which has prevented legislation coming to law

14. Assess the power of committee chairs
Bottle up	Committee chairs can bottle up (pigeon hole) legislation passed in the other chamber, this allows them to completely disregard proposed legislation which then leads it to slowly die. In November 2014 for example it emerged that the House had passed over 300 pieces of legislation but the Senate had not acted upon these because they were bottled up by committee chairmen. HOWEVER, the House has begun to use the discharge process more often which is a mechanism that forces committee chairmen to end their consideration of the bill (stop it from being bottled up) and bring it to the House floor for debate. During the 113th Congress there were 14 discharge motions passed by the House (it requires a majority, 218, of signatures). In 2014 195 House members (all Democrats) attempted to discharge the fair Minimum Wage Bill, increased use of discharge process shows committee chairs are no longer feared
Re-write bills	Committee chairmen control the committees agenda and are able to substantially rewrite a whole bill, they’re able to run their committees very independently from the wishes of Congress and disregard the national interest and work towards their own. This was seen with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 2012 which sought to prevent federal agencies from reading peoples electronic files, however, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy completely re-wrote the bill to allow 22 federal agencies to read citizens electronic data such as emails without a warrant. HOWEVER, committee hearings have now been open to cable TV in the form of C-SPAN which has made committee hearings more transparent and therefore less prone to corruption, decreasing the likelihood of this to happen frequently
Iron triangles	Committee Chairs can get their committee to become a strong corner of an iron triangle, which along with a pressure group and a federal bureaucracy agency can become so powerful that it almost creates a sub-government whereby the chairmen work towards the interest of the pressure group and agency in the federal bureaucracy. For instance, one notable iron triangle is seen involving AIPAC à Defence Department à Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that committees members are usually funded by AIPAC. HOWEVER, there’s now a three-term limit on committee chairmen so the likelihood of iron triangles remaining static are unlikely nor are iron triangles likely to form for long periods of time.

15. What is judicial activism and on what grounds has it been criticised?
Judicial Review	Judicial activists love to flaunt about their power of judicial review sometimes excessively. This has been criticised because this excessive use of judicial review has created an image of the Supreme Court acting as a quasi-legislature for which they do not have a mandate. For instance, the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down legislation passed by the legislature such as in US v Windsor (DOMA) has generates an image of an imperiled judiciary
Respect for Precedent	Judicial activists do not respect the precedent, they believe the Supreme Court should fulfill its role as a check and balance and therefore continue updating past rulings that are no longer relevant. However, this has been criticised because the Constitution does not give the power of judicial review and the Supreme Court granted it themselves through Marbury v. Madison, which can be deemed as going against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. If they’re constantly overruling past decisions the Supreme Court appears incoherent and perhaps too powerful. E.g. Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson
How to read Constitution	They read the Constitution very loosely as they believe it needs to be updated very often and to reflect modern day life and the Founding Fathers knew the Constitution would require being updated and thus its important for the court to update it. This has been criticised because it gets to a point where the Constitution can be changed beyond all recognition and new ‘rights’ emerge which were not initially in the Constitution such as the right to privacy was added to the 4th amendment under Griswold v. Connecticut and has recently been updated through Riley v. California (2014). And during the on-going Obergefell v. Hodges case Marco Rubio said that it is ridiculous to assume that gay marriage was a right protected by the constitution, arguably criticising judicial activism.
Views of minorities	Judicial activists believe that since the other two branches of government have got a poor record on the protection of minority groups (DOMA, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) it is up to the Supreme Court to protect them. However, this has been criticised because it leads to the tyranny of the minority which was perhaps most evidently seen from Hollingsworth v. Perry whereby the Supreme Court struck down California’s Proposition 8 which sought to ban same-sex marriage despite voters voting in favour of banning it, thus neglecting the will of the majority. This can also lead to wedge politics which just exacerbates issues.

16. What is judicial restraint and on what grounds has it been criticised?
Judicial Review	Judicial restraint judges try to use judicial review as less as possible, believing that it is up to elected politicians and not an unelected judiciary to be making constitutional laws and trust politicians to make laws that abide by the constitution so judges don’t have to step in. However, if the Supreme Court don’t use judicial review they cannot fulfill their role as a check and balance and this then allows the other two branches to become too powerful – e.g. ‘imperial presidency’ and obvious unconstitutional laws still remain standing such as (arguably) the PATRIOT Act which infringes the 4th Amendment
Respect for Precedent	Judicial restraint judges respect the precedent and believe that since the Constitution did not give them judicial review they should avoid using it to change previous court rulings. This has come under fire too because if judicial restraint judges believe this then it means that potentially discriminatory laws and rulings can remain standing such as Plessy v. Ferguson and arguably Shelby County v. Holder
How to read Constitution	They read the Constitution very literally. This too has been criticised because the Constitution is an anachronism and the Founding Fathers wanted it to be updated every so often and because they take the Constitution too seriously archaic amendments like (arguably) the 2nd Amendment remains standing, meaning that aspects of the Constitution can remain standing which should no longer apply to the modern age – for instance Hollingsworth v. Perry (gun rights)
Views of minorities	They believe it is not the role of the Court to protect minorities but elected politicians instead. However, elected politicians have got a long history of poor protection of ethnic minorities (e.g. DOMA, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Arizona SB 1070) and so it would be more sensible for the Supreme Court to step in

17. What is judicial review and why has it been controversial?
Judicial review is a power granted to the Supreme Court themselves by Marbury v. Madison which gives the Supreme Court the ability to determine whether the actions of Congress, executive or states is constitutional or not and thus, have the ability to strike down laws and actions of any other the other branches or states.
Quasi-legislature	Judicial review has been controversial because it enables an unelected body to act as a quasi-legislature and strike down the legislation or action of other elected branches, given the impression that the Supreme Court is effectively ‘legislating from the bench’. This was most clearly seen from cases like Shelby County v. Holder (struck down certain bits of the 1965 Voting Rights Act) and also US v. Arizona (struck down bits of Arizona SB 1070). This ability for an unelected body to strike down the legislation of an elected body and legislate from the bench has made judicial review very controversial
Enacts Social Change	Through judicial review the Supreme Court can effectively enact social change, however, they’re not experts in social policy and therefore should not be able to enact social change through judicial review. For instance, this is most commonly seen through cases on gay marriage such as US v Windsor, Hollingsworth v Perry and the ongoing Obergefell v. Hodges. Through making decisions on major issues such as gay marriage, which causes wedge politics, the Supreme Court effectively creates social change in American society.
Imperial Judiciary	The power of judicial review is virtually an uncheckable power – the main way it can be ‘checked’ is by introducing constitutional amendments to overturn a supreme court ruling or by having the legislature introduce a new law which changes the a law that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. However, both of these – particularly the constitutional amendments are rarely initiated. So, the power of judicial review remains an ultimately uncheckable power which has created this image of an imperial judiciary.
Judicial Activists	Judicial activists use judicial review way too often and this can bring about a lot of change in many ways such as changing the constitution beyond all recognition or beyond the intent of the Founding Fathers by the introduction of new ‘rights’ which the Founding Fathers did not initially include in the Constitution such as the right to privacy established under Griswold v Connecticut and recently updated by Riley v. California. This ability of judicial activists to change the constitution beyond what it originally looked like has come under a lot of criticism.

17. Explain the factors that limit the power and influence of the Supreme Court
Lack of enforcement power	The Supreme Court merely rules actions or laws of the other branches of government (+states) unconstitutional, other than that it can not enforce it’s own rulings and has to rely on the federal bureaucracy, legislature, executive, etc to actually enforce it. This is probably today seen today from the fact that although the right to privacy is an established right under Griswold v. Connecticut and more recently updated to apply to new tech like mobile phones in Riley v. California, the right to privacy has not been enforced. The NSA snooping program demonstrates how the right to privacy is not enforced.
No initiation power	The Supreme Court can not flaunt about its power of judicial review as much as it likes as it lacks initiation power. So even if a justice is well aware of the existence of an unconstitutional law or a case whereby somebody’s rights were completely violated, they cannot initiate a court case. Instead, they have to wait for a plaintiff.
Political Pressure	Years back Obama applied political pressure to the Supreme Court saying that he trusts the Supreme Court not to overrule Obamacare and this has happened again in the ongoing King v. Burwell case which the Supreme Court is due to make a ruling this month. Obama said that he is confident the Supreme Court will not rule against his healthcare law, he described King v. Burwell as an “easy case” that should not have been taken to the court in the first place. “I’m optimistic the Supreme Court will play it straight when it comes to interpretation”. This mounting political pressure arguably acts as an informal restraint on the Supreme Court’s power as it also hinders its independence and freedom from politicization.
Tradition	The Supreme Court, traditionally, has been reluctant to engage itself in cases on specific issues such as foreign policy in particular. Although there was a recent rulings in Zivotofsky v. Kerry whereby the court decided that Congress was not entitled to order the state dept to record the place of birth as Israel in passports of American children born in Jerusalem if their parents requested. This was a first in a long time, previous ones were during the Bush years with cases like Hamdi v Rumsfeld (under due process clause detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge detainment), Boumediene v. Bush (Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge detainment through habeas corpus) and Hamdan v Rumsfeld (detainees could not be subject to military trials without authorisation of Congress). So, while there were cases in foreign policy, they were very limited as most were just related to Guantanamo Bay and the Supreme Court limit themselves by upholding a tradition of not getting involved in foreign affairs.

18. To what extent is the independence of the Supreme Court protected?
Separation of Powers	The separation of powers means that judicial power is solely vested in the Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court is free from political interference when making decisions. HOWEVER, even when the Supreme Court is making decisions it is not free from political interference nor pressure as seen by Obama’s recent mounting pressure over upholding Obamacare in King v. Burwell (its an “easy case”) and also whenever a controversial case is going through there is bound to be some political activism somewhere or even disapproval from members of Congress like how Marco Rubio claimed it to be ridiculous to think same-sex marriage was protected under the constitution during the ongoing Obergefell v. Hodges case.
Two stage appointment process	The two stage appointment process whereby a President first appoints a Justice and then the Senate has to confirm the appointment following a committee hearing in which the justice is scrutinised prevents the likelihood of there being any politically motivated. HOWEVER, the fact remains that Supreme Court justices are nominated on the basis of their ideology and Presidents are more likely to nominate judges who share the same political outlook as them and who he knows will rule according to his beliefs, e.g. Sonia Sotomayor was obviously appointed on the basis of similar liberal ideology to Obamas.
Senate hearing Not protected	Even during the Senate hearing the justice who has been nominated is heavily politicized by the Senate which doesn’t protect the Court from its independence. During Clarence Thomas’s hearing in 1991 a lot of attention was drawn to his sexual assault allegations. More recently Sonia Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ comment was one area which the Senate hearing liked to focus greatly on, as did the media.
Life tenure	Justices have got life tenure and if they are to be removed from office this must occur through a process of impeachment whereby the House of Representatives initiates the impeachment process and the Senate conducts the trial, as it’s the responsibility of both houses of Congress this makes politically motivated impeachments considerably less likely.

19. To what extent has federalism been eroded as a constitutional principle?
Obamacare	Arguably Obamacare has eroded federalism as it has taken away the responsibility over welfare from the states to the federal government, welfare provisions is traditionally a states job but clearly Obamacare has undermined this. HOWEVER, arguably its not been undermined by Obamacare as the Sebelius case upheld Congress’ powers to enact most provisions of Obamacare but not all. Also the ongoing King v. Burwell case is looking at the constitutionality of Obamacare, so although it may appear to have been eroded – the issue of Obamacare has not gone unnoticed and the Supreme Court are soon going to make a decision.
Same sex marriage	There have been many incidents whereby states rights over the issue of same-sex marriage have been eroded, for instance Hollingsworth v. Perry struck down California’s Proposition 8. HOWEVER, in US v Windsor DOMA was struck down which therefore entrenched federalism by ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional, thus giving the power to decide on the definition of ‘marriage’ back to the states.
Immigration	Immigration reform has led to a power struggle between federal government and state government, for instance, Obama’s executive order was not greeted with enthusiasm from every state and some have sought to oppose it because they see it as being executive overreach in which the executive is having a say on a states immigration system, similarly in US v Arizona key parts of Arizona’s anti-immigration law (Arizona SB 1070) were struck. HOWEVER, federalism in this context hasn’t been eroded because states continue to control its own immigration laws, for instance a federal judge in Texas put Obama’s executive order on immigration on-hold, states continue to pass their own anti immigration laws such as Alabama HB 56, Arizona SB 1070 still stands, California DREAM Act, etc
Race	The federal government has enforced race based legislation to states, most notably in the form of Affirmative Action, again highlighting how federalism is gradually being eroded because states don’t have control of their own race policies, HOWEVER, over the years we’ve seen federalism be enforced through the Supreme Court again through cases like Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action whereby the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan voter initiative to ban the use of race in university admissions, this case demonstrates the great amount of power being delegated to the states themselves – also Shelby County v Holder which struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and gave states more power over their own voting practices.

20. Most significant factors in the President’s choice of Supreme Court justices
Ideology	The President is most likely going to appoint a justice who shares a similar political outlook as them, someone who he knows will rule according to his own ideology. Sonia Sotomayor is without a doubt a liberal, hence why she won praise from Democrats and liberals but was opposed by Republicans conservatives.
Senate	The President must consider the current composition of the Senate and how they will react to one of his appointments, right now with a Republican-dominated Senate the President would perhaps have difficulty in getting one of his appointments confirmed.
Representation	Sometimes justices may be appointed on the basis of whether they represent what America looks like in terms of race, ethnicity or gender. Obama particularly considered this during his two nominations of the Supreme Court when appointing two females, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Sotomayor who is also Hispanic.
Experience	A justices experience needs to be considered prior to nomination, e.g. Elena Kagan served as the 45th United States Solicitor General between 2009-10 and Sonia Sotomayor had previous served in the Court of Appeals and as a judge for New York’s southern district court.

20. Most significant factors in the President’s choice of Supreme Court justices
Ideology	The President is most likely going to appoint a justice who shares a similar political outlook as them, someone who he knows will rule according to his own ideology. Sonia Sotomayor is without a doubt a liberal, hence why she won praise from Democrats and liberals but was opposed by Republicans conservatives.
Senate	The President must consider the current composition of the Senate and how they will react to one of his appointments, right now with a Republican-dominated Senate the President would perhaps have difficulty in getting one of his appointments confirmed.
Representation	Sometimes justices may be appointed on the basis of whether they represent what America looks like in terms of race, ethnicity or gender. Obama particularly considered this during his two nominations of the Supreme Court when appointing two females, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Sotomayor who is also Hispanic.
Experience	A justices experience needs to be considered prior to nomination, e.g. Elena Kagan served as the 45th United States Solicitor General between 2009-10 and Sonia Sotomayor had previous served in the Court of Appeals and as a judge for New York’s southern district court.