Many Presidents have found that the persons they nominate to the Supreme Court make decisions that are not in accord with the ideological views of President himself. There was a time when Supreme court appointments were undertaken in a pro forma fashion. Then, the Court was not considered an institution with as much power or importance as Congress and the Executive even though the three branches of government were supposed to be equal to one another. Yet, more recently battles over Supreme Court nominees have been heated, showing a shift in attitude as more and more policies are set by legislative fiat based on a reading of the Constitution. Presidents today want those they nominate to follow their ideology closely, but there is still no guarantee that this will occur. Judges are human beings, and they change their views just as the public does, just as the political environment changes, and just as new issues with new circumstances require changes in the law. Presidents can control who they nominate, and the Senate has a role in agreeing with the nominees, a process that has become more heated and more focused in recent years. Still, the doctrine of judicial independence is prized and is also embodied in the Constitution so that Justices are confirmed for life, leaving them to make their decisions without political pressure having much influence.
In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower nominated former California Governor Earl Warren as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Presumably, Eisenhower thought that the Republican from California had a similar political philosophy to his own and so that Warren would decide cases on the court in ways that would be in accord with Eisenhower's political philosophy and his administration. One of the first issues to face Warren when he ascended to the bench was the constitutionality of racial segregation. The decision that would emerge was one of the most significant cases on race eve...