What distinguishes the politics of Supreme Court nominations from the politics of other judicial branch nominations?

What will be an ideal response?

The ideal answer should:
a. Explain how the Constitution gives the president the power to nominate justices to the federal bench with the advice and consent of the US Senate, noting how the lifeterms of judges allow presidents the opportunity to have an impact on the federal bench long after they have left office.
b.Identify the politics involved in district and appellate court judicial nominations, noting that historically the Senate has approved the vast majority of presidents' lower court nominees, even though the judges were often the presidents' co-partisans and held expansive views of presidential power.
c.Discuss the role thatsenators play in the selection of district-level nominees, based on the norm of senatorial courtesy.
d.Assess how the politics of appointment intensifies at the appellate court level and how presidents have tried to overcome the trend of congressional resistanceby using recess appointments, drawing on the example of Judge Charles Pickering.
e. Distinguish the Supreme Court process from the lower court process by virtue of the increased stakes and political nature of the process, with the president personally consulting on the nominee, intensive nominee vetting, fierce public scrutiny, and a reduced chance of the nominee being confirmed, drawing on the examples of Sonia Sotomayer, Robert Bork, and Clarence Thomas.