Too frequently already has Morning Fog pointed out the dysfunctionality of the current Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process. A President of either party proposes an eminently qualified jurist for the Court, though naturally someone whom he sees as sharing the main tenets of his own legal philosophy; opposing party Senators on the Judiciary Committee try to examine the nominee's politics and to predict how she/he will vote on various politically-charged issues that might come before the court.
Up until a couple of decades ago, though, Senators generally conceded a President's right to get an obviously qualified nominee confirmed and, absent any serious questions about the prospective justice's legal qualifications (seldom if ever have there been any), even most of the opposition would vote for the nominee or possibly abstain. In recent years, and this week in the case of Elena Kagan, Republicans largely refused to vote in favor. Some didn't even show up in person to vote. The one exception, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who eloquently took the high road, deserves the praise he is getting (in some quarters at least) for having done so.
The Court's authority and legitimacy rest on its remaining above the fray and on the public perception that it is politically neutral. When the opposition Senators refuse to approve a clearly qualified nominee - indeed to a lesser extent even during hearings when they persist in asking politically charged questions they know won't (can't!) be answered - they undermine public trust in the Supreme Court by making it out to be just another partisan political forum.
Let's hope that the example Graham has set may inspire broader-based willingness by overly partisan politicos to say "aye" when the time comes: Aye to a nominee, aye to the seriousness of the process, and aye above all to having faith in the Constitution, which if I'm not mistaken, all Senators have sworn to uphold.
Comments