Down the Slippery Slope To A Less Supreme Court

I can't muster much enthusiasm for arguing about the nomination and near-certain confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The candidate herself does not appear to be exceptionally distinguished, and he experience is brief, but her background, like that of probably 1,000 other jurists we could unearth, is adequate. Even Democrats see that the outcome of the vote is foregone. They are using their time sensibly, to make clear some of their policy concerns, so far without the rancorous, bitter, and emotional outcries we've had in previous iterations of this exercise. The same drama plays out every time we need a new Justice. Let's get on with it, then.

There can be no question that the Republican Party has savaged, on at least two occasions now, political comity in its crazed pursuit of dominance on the Court. We might wish it weren't so, but in politics, the ultimate deciding factor is power; and the only possible response available to those aggrieved by bad treatment is to have a long memory and play even less fair next time. Let's not be surprised. 

Will Barrett's confirmation much affect issues before the Court, as Trump has made clear he expects? It's impossible to tell. However, because of the absolute certainty of her confirmation, Barrett doesn't even need to lie about her views (as so many others have done) and I actually like that her mode of response seems less orotund than (for example) Kavanaugh's was. Could that mean there is a slightly better chance that we can believe her?  

No comment. But at this time and place I hope all the Justices will have foremost in mind their role in our Constitutional structure, and the broad deterioration of the Supreme Court's legitimacy with voters, beginning at least from the unnecessary intervention in the election of 2000 and running through our current  President's concerted attacks on the rule of law.  The red line I see is the Court's meddling in election results again. We have perfectly good election mechanisms; the Court was not needed. Court intervention shouldn't be required this time, either, but because of Trump's and his henchmen's efforts to call the election process into question, perhaps it will be. This is one of the many indicators of Trump's many pernicious and destructive effects on U.S. society.

I am not among those who expect Barrett to commit in advance to recuse herself from cases involving the election. (Any more than I expect Biden to give a firm answer about whether he would try to "pack" the Court.) But after her confirmation, if the court accepts such a case, I would absolutely expect her to do so immediately. And not just her. Justice Kavanaugh probably should also recuse himself.  He too was :on the ground fixing the outcome in Florida. Perhaps we should suggest that any Justice on the Court in 2000 should recuse him/herself? This could get pretty ridiculous! So let's just leave it for new Justice Barrett, the one who has publicly and specifically been commissioned by Trump to assure his reelection, to recuse. It won't be a happy start for her.  It may be the only way the Court can retain a wisp of legitimacy. Whatever decision they make leave half the U.S. population doubting their impartiality. 

Best then, that they refuse to take any case involving the election.  

 

There can be no question that the Republican Party has savaged, on at least two occasions now, political comity in its crazed pursuit of dominance on the Court. We might wish it weren't so, but in politics, the ultimate deciding factor is power; and the only possible response available to those aggrieved by bad treatment is to have a long memory and play even less fair next time. Let's not be surprised. 

Will Barrett's confirmation much affect issues before the Court, as Trump has made clear he expects? It's impossible to tell. However, because of the absolute certainty of her confirmation, Barrett doesn't even need to lie about her views (as so many others have done) and I actually like that her mode of response seems less orotund than (for example) Kavanaugh's was. Could that mean there is a slightly better chance that we can believe her?  

No comment. But at this time and place I hope all the Justices will have foremost in mind their role in our Constitutional structure, and the broad deterioration of the Supreme Court's legitimacy with voters, beginning at least from the unnecessary intervention in the election of 2000 and running through our current  President's concerted attacks on the rule of law.  The red line I see is the Court's meddling in election results again. We have perfectly good election mechanisms; the Court was not needed. Court intervention shouldn't be required this time, either, but because of Trump's and his henchmen's efforts to call the election process into question, perhaps it will be. This is one of the many indicators of Trump's many pernicious and destructive effects on U.S. society.

I am not among those who expect Barrett to commit in advance to recuse herself from cases involving the election. (Any more than I expect Biden to give a firm answer about whether he would try to "pack" the Court.) But after her confirmation, if the court accepts such a case, I would absolutely expect her to do so immediately. And not just her. Justice Kavanaugh probably should also recuse himself.  He too was :on the ground fixing the outcome in Florida. Perhaps we should suggest that any Justice on the Court in 2000 should recuse him/herself? This could get pretty ridiculous! So let's just leave it for new Justice Barrett, the one who has publicly and specifically been commissioned by Trump to assure his reelection, to recuse. It won't be a happy start for her.  It may be the only way the Court can retain a wisp of legitimacy. Whatever decision they make leave half the U.S. population doubting their impartiality. 

Best then, that they refuse to take any case involving the election.  

 

Comments

[PiedType]

She certainly should recuse herself if it comes to that. After all, she will have been confirmed DURING an election, since voting has already started. And no election should end up in court. You count the votes; you recount them as often as necessary; you even have another election if necessary. But you don't let 8 or 9 justices decide something that millions are supposed to decide. 2000 was a travesty. It should never be repeated.

[JHawk23]

Let's hope "Judging Amy" agrees. I was pleased when I finally got around to my Washington Post on Thursday afternoon, to see their lead editorial made much the same point. Could I have save myself the trouble of writing?

But I think WP misses the larger point, that of the Court's reputation and credibility.