Post#1336 » by pancakes3 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:19 pm
Justices are appointed for life so they aren't subject to the fickle whims of the electorate and other outside influences, so their decisions will continue to be neutral and unswayed. That does not mean they're immune to removal for legitimate concerns such as being a sexual deviant, or other malfeasances that call their decision-making into question. I'd want RBG to lose her job if similar allegations arose against her
This has nothing to do with partisanship. There's an endless parade of conservative judges behind Kavannaugh that don't have multiple sexual assault allegations on their record that are eligible for the bench. Gorsuch, for all of his flaws, didn't have any. Doubling down on Kavannaugh, dismissing legitimate strikes against him, and framing it as a partisan objection is basically lying to the public.
But we should also take a couple steps back and realize what's happening to how SCOTUS nominees are reflective of how politics and partisanship has infiltrated the nomination process. What is supposed to be a bastion against partisanship is now the prime battleground where political ideologies are fought.
1) It's insane that Gorsuch, Kavannaugh, and the other Trump nominees have sufficiently signaled that they would be good Republican soldiers if/when appointed. All of Trump's nominees are furnished by the Federalist Society. Fed Soc is notoriously partisan, hiding under the pretext of "textualism" and holds outsized power in the legal community, thanks to them aligning their interests with republicans, powergrabbing since the Regan administration. The group of ~70,000 holds disproportionately massive portion of politically nominated legal positions out of a community of over a million attorneys in the US. It's completely anathema to the role of judges and government attorneys in this country. An objectively good, and "original-as-to-the-wishes-of-the-founders" nominee has no political affiliations.
2) The linedrawing of what is gamesmanship and what is treason when it comes to the nomination process is a bad game to play. Praising McConnel's gamesmanship for stalling his way to steal a SCOTUS seat while condemning courtpacking is just self-rationalization. Both are equally abhorrent practices. To favor one over the other is to admit that certain infractions are justified and others aren't, and sets the baseline assumption that infractions of the nomination process on some level, in theory and in practice, are tolerable. It isn't. Infractions cannot be tolerated. Period.
3) How different are Americans really? Either D's and R's are not much different - that we are all Americans, or D's and R's are so completely at odds with each other that we might as well have a civil split. Just how intolerable would it be to have a Dem majority or a R majority on the court? in Congress? Because it's undeniable that Newt's, and now McConnell's brand of hyperpartisanship, and the inter-party relations is such that there's essentially two different nations existing within our borders anyway. Trump's blanket policy to roll back all Obama-era regulations for the sake of undoing Obama's decisions, regardless of whether it makes sense for the public just heightens this "us v them" mentality.
So, how different are Americans, really? I had posted a few pages ago that the Republican playbook is to demonize Dems on a moral level, as opposed to an ideological level. Abortion is MURDER, et. al. Now, Dems aren't innocent either - Hilary fueling the fire by calling Trumpers deplorable didn't help, but it's obvious that one side is more guilty of this than the other.
But if we're not so different, what difference does it make? What does Kavannaugh losing his seat to some other FedSoc member really matter? It would only show that Mitch is unable to impose his political will on Congressional processes - that's it. It has nothing to do with abortion, or even a political party gaining or losing power. Mitch is opposed because he knows his time is lost, but for the rest of Red nation out there - what difference does it make? You wouldn't even be "losing" points on the Real GM Political Roundtable scoreboard.
Bullets -> Wizards
