366 CHAPTER 12|THE COURTS
which meant that affi rmative action was legal in certain parts of the country and
unconstitutional in other parts. A district court or appeals court ruling is applica-
ble only for the specifi c region of that court, whereas Supreme Court rulings apply
to the entire country.
Although the Supreme Court is the most important interpreter of the Con-
stitution, the president and Congress also interpret the Constitution on a regu-
lar basis. This means that the Supreme Court does not always have the fi nal say.
For example, if the Court strikes down a federal law for being overly vague, Con-
gress can rewrite the law to clarify the off ending passage. When this happens,
Congress may have the fi nal word. For example, Congress overturned Ledbetter v.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber (2007) when it passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
in 2009. The law said that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted the 1964 Civil
Rights Act when it ruled in 2007 that Ledbetter would have had to fi le her pay dis-
crimination suit within 180 days of being hired.^11
Even on matters of constitutional interpretation rather than statutory interpre-
tation, Congress can fi ght back by passing a constitutional amendment. However,
this is a diffi cult and time-consuming process; hundreds of amendments are pro-
posed every year, but very few even get a hearing or come to a vote in Congress, and
even fewer are passed and submitted to the states for ratifi cation (see Chapter 2).
Nevertheless, that option is available as a way of overturning an unpopular Court
decision.How Judges are Selected
There are many mechanisms for placing judges in courts. At the national level, the
president makes the appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. At
the state level, various methods are in use.STATE-LEVEL JUDGES
At the state level there are fi ve diff erent means for selecting judges for trial courts:
appointment by the governor (two states), appointment by the state legislature
(two states), partisan elections (nine states), nonpartisan elections (17 states),
and the system called the Missouri Plan in which the governor makes appoint-
ments from a list compiled by a nonpartisan screening committee (17 states; four
more states use the Missouri Plan for some courts and another means for other
courts).^12 With this last method, the appointed judge usually has to run in a reten-
tion election within several years of the appointment, making this system a hybrid
of the political nomination and popular election routes to the court.
There is some controversy over the wisdom of electing judges. Such elections
may undermine the courts’ role as the protector of unpopular minority rights
and even in states where judicial elections are offi cially nonpartisan, it is clear
who the liberal and conservative candidates are, so judicial elections can be
very partisan. Electing judges also raises the potential for confl icts of interest if
campaign contributors have cases before the court.^13 On the other hand, elected
judges will be more responsive to public opinion, especia lly on sa lient issues such
as the death penalty^14 and abortion.^15 Furthermore, the alternative to elections—
appointing judges—has been criticized as elitist by giving power over nomina-
tions to lawyers and for claiming that the process is “merit-based” without much
evidence.^16