Supreme Court concerns
|
|
How enhanced partisanship and a Senate minority unwilling to fight let to the current, conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
The recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the Indiana law requiring photo ID at the polls got me into thinking about the influence of partisanship even on the highest court of the land. In my view, it all comes down to enhanced partisanship and polarization, starting already in the nomination process.
It was rather unfortunate that President Bush didn't get to fill just one,but two Supreme Court seats, and even more unfortunate was that one of those seats was that of the Chief Justice. On top of that, he had a Republican-controlled Senate backing him.
Or did he really?
Though in the minority at the time, the Democrats still might have stopped at least one confirmation from happening. And I have to say that at this point I'm still a little disappointed at the Democratic senators at the time. After allowing for John Roberts to be confirmed as Chief Justice (which was in my view the right thing to do), they could well have prevented Sam Alito (who is way more conservative) from being confirmed as well. But when Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy tried to filibuster, most of their Democratic colleagues wouldn't support them.
As you can tell, this still bothers me today. Every time this Supreme Court makes a controversial decision, I think back and ask once again: Why didn't the Democrats put up a fight to stop Alito? They might have stopped him. They might even have been able to force Bush to nominate someone more moderate. Or, if nothing else, at least they would now be able to say they tried.
I believe that the Senate needs to take its duties in the nomination and confirmation process more serious. Being in the minority doesn't mean not having a voice, especially not in the US Senate.
The recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the Indiana law requiring photo ID at the polls got me into thinking about the influence of partisanship even on the highest court of the land. In my view, it all comes down to enhanced partisanship and polarization, starting already in the nomination process.
It was rather unfortunate that President Bush didn't get to fill just one,but two Supreme Court seats, and even more unfortunate was that one of those seats was that of the Chief Justice. On top of that, he had a Republican-controlled Senate backing him.
Or did he really?
Though in the minority at the time, the Democrats still might have stopped at least one confirmation from happening. And I have to say that at this point I'm still a little disappointed at the Democratic senators at the time. After allowing for John Roberts to be confirmed as Chief Justice (which was in my view the right thing to do), they could well have prevented Sam Alito (who is way more conservative) from being confirmed as well. But when Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy tried to filibuster, most of their Democratic colleagues wouldn't support them.
As you can tell, this still bothers me today. Every time this Supreme Court makes a controversial decision, I think back and ask once again: Why didn't the Democrats put up a fight to stop Alito? They might have stopped him. They might even have been able to force Bush to nominate someone more moderate. Or, if nothing else, at least they would now be able to say they tried.
I believe that the Senate needs to take its duties in the nomination and confirmation process more serious. Being in the minority doesn't mean not having a voice, especially not in the US Senate.
