Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
FDR threatened to pack the court to counter the movement to fill the court with old conservatives who were supporting the robber barons. The court was not acting in the people's best interests and that was problem as the court had proven to be non-functional. This had massive support by the electorate and common folk. See, context matters. It was actually very similar to the shenanigans we are seeing play out right now.
Again, the appointments were traditionally focused on the nominee's bona fides not on their political identification on predetermination to vote on specific issues. As soon as you make a selection on a predetermination requirement, that is undue influence through political identification. This has rarely happened in the past.
|
I know the history of FDRs plan, it entirely backs my point hence why I brought it up. If the same shenanigans happened 100 years ago this isn’t exactly a new thing.
Bonafides May have been the public focus and people would have been much more discrete in the past but the thought process of how the rulings the appointed Justices would make and how that would shape America has always been a consideration of the president when appointing and senate when confirming. The quiet part is just said out loud today.
You probably have a pool of 100 people who have the bonafides to be Supreme Court justices. So picking politically does not mean selecting an unqualified person.