This led to political chaos and controversy as all three branches involved were left extremely tangled, the Supreme Court was left with a 4-4 ideological court, the president was left with a nominee which wouldn’t be considered by the Republicans, and a Republican-led Congress which is in the middle of the two branches. This form of American politics created by the design of internal checks and balances by the framers should benefit nobody and it leaves the system vulnerable. The Republican-led Congress refused to acknowledge President Obama’s nominee citing that the next president should choose a nominee. This left the Supreme Court with a split ideological court for 421 days. This form of messy government and politics shouldn’t be able to be accepted as the new norm by the American people as it is a threat to the stability of this nation.
The process of internal checks and balances does a good job of preventing the president from encroaching on the American people and from letting a tyrannical system from occurring. But to many, it also gives the president fewer powers and Congress too much. This may lead to conflict such as in 1920, the American government had been negotiating with the “Big Four” Allies for months and were able to come up with a treaty in which majority of the world was able to accept. But it wasn’t able to pass the Senate because the Senate majority leader Henry Cabot didn’t like the provision in the treaty regarding the League of Nations, which was to then to become an organization which would work to world peace. Cabot’s role in the failure of the Treaty of Versailles in the Senate didn’t go unnoticed as many people were frustrated that it hadn’t passed, many of the Big Four Allies were also frustrated at the failure. President Woodrow Wilson’s proposed 14 points were considerably very popular at the time and many could say that the Senate’s rejection of the treaty didn’t reflect the national view of the treaty.
There are cases like this in which the design of internal checks and balances comes into conflict with the executive, views of the people, and even international governments. The views and voting of elected officials shouldn’t differ from their constituents and this is why some of the internal checks and balances should be limited or altered as in this case members of Congress aren’t negotiating treaties, the executive his and they have first-hand knowledge and more in-depth knowledge of the situation then do members of Congress.
