Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
I would agree with this except for the fact that it is a policy and platform position for the GOP and conservatives in the United States. They are NOT trying to introduce balance into the courts, they are intentionally trying to introduce ideology to the bench so their political views will be carried out through means they cannot achieve through the other branches of government. This was the one branch that was to be apolitical, but here we are with one group clearly articulating this is their goal and intent. That is the big difference.
|
Supreme Court appointments have never not been political.
I’m not sure any president has appointed any justice without regard to ideally. Garland was Obama’s attempt to put someone right enough to the spectrum that Mitch would bite.
All of the “liberal” justices were appointed by democrats. All the conservative justices by republicans. These positions have always been political appointees. The hope is that given it is very difficult to impeach a Justice that they are not bound by the idealogical that got them to the bench and are free to make wise decisions on the basis of their interpretation of law.
The idea of impartiality is a fairytale. The best you can hope for is that they apply the law consistently within their philosophy so the textualists are always textualists and the contextualists are contextualists even if it doesn’t suit them.
So how is the packing of the Supreme Court with Justice aligning to their view Monstrous