Final answer:
Supreme Court justices' engagement in the selection process of new justices is an issue that ties into the core principles of judicial independence and the long-term institutional integrity of the Court. While their input could be informative, it should ideally focus on professional and not ideological qualifications, respecting the balance of constitutional powers between the President and the Senate.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question you've asked centers around whether it is appropriate for Supreme Court justices to have a substantial role in the selection of new justices. The Constitution provides a framework for appointing justices; it is the President who nominates and the Senate that confirms. However, the process is inherently influenced by political shifts and the ideological preferences of current justices. Justices like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett showcase how the selection process can reflect the prevailing politics and the President's desire for an ideological legacy.
In considering whether this is appropriate, it is important to reflect on the principles of judicial independence and the anticipation that justices will be insulated from political pressure due to their lifetime tenure. Yet, because justices themselves are not isolated from political realms entirely, their input can contribute to a more collegial and informed process. This assumes, however, that they prioritize the Court's institutional integrity over individual ideological aims.
The selection of justices has indeed been marked by ideological leanings, as evidenced by the differences in rulings on key issues between justices appointed by presidents of different political parties. While it may seem undesirable for active justices to engage in the selection process, if a justice's contribution is limited to advising on professional qualifications rather than ideological alignment, it could be seen as beneficial.