Archive: Opinions

I don't understand why approval of Supreme Court justices are so political.  OK, I do understand it, but something as theoretically non-political as being  judge, especially a Supreme Court judge, should be kept as far away from politics as possible.  Judges are supposed to be arbiters of the law, not of political platforms.

The problem is that a highly politicized body, the US Senate, confirms Supreme Court nominations.  I don't see a problem with the President nominating potential judges.  But if a politically neutral body were in charge of confirmation it wouldn't matter how political a president is, because he or she would be forced to nominate potential judges who are more interested in the scales of justice than dogma.

Everyone has their own idea about what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the US Constitution.  But they didn't have anything to say about what might influence the President or Senate when approving Supreme Court justices.

In defining the authority of the President of the United States, Article Two of the United States Constitution says, "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

So it's hard to know what they were thinking.  Certainly the Senate's advice and consent is valuable in some circumstances.  But it is most assuredly worthless when appointing a judge for life who is philosophically expected to render fair and unbiased opinions on matters of law.

It seems pretty clear in light of current events that they were wrong about the part where they say "with the advice and consent of the Senate".  The circus surrounding the current nominee is a national disgrace. Even if you were to argue that the Senate has been justified in every action, they have given no regard to the appearance of a fair evaluation of the candidate, except when they hired a woman to ask questions of Christine Blasey Ford, presumably so the 'old white men questioning an alleged female victim' wouldn't look bad.  That didn't seem to be very effective in not making them look bad.

The United States should amend the constitution to require a non-political body's advice and consent when appointing Supreme Court judges.  There are a few individuals... not many these days... who fit that bill.  The Senate should be taken entirely out of the equation.

v14i38