Where Were You Before?
The latest Supreme Court nomination hearings have again reminded us of the flawed nature of this selection process when it becomes hyper-partisan.
Appointments to the federal courts—the district court, circuit courts of appeals, and Supreme Court—have to be approved by the U.S. Senate. Hearings are held, votes are taken…and it’s pretty much a rubber stamp process except when it’s for the nine members of the Supreme Court.
The trap game is when a Senator votes to approve a candidate for the federal appeals court…but then acts like the person is not worthy of drawing a breath when the nomination is for the Supreme Court. Usually, it’s the same judge with the same views as before…the only difference is that voters are paying attention when it’s for the top job, so votes are open for change due to political expediency.
Obviously, if a federal appeals judge has done a horrible job, then a Senator who might have voted to confirm him or her originally could have a change of heart when the next vote comes up. But typically, the appeals judge has the same views on the Constitution and the role of the courts in the second hearing for the Supreme Court as he or she did originally. So if a Senator voted for the judge the first time, why not the second time…and vice versa.
We all know why, and it has nothing to do with preserving the sanctity of our system of justice.
So if that’s the game, and it appears that it is, then Senators need to be paying more attention when the person is nominated for the circuit court of appeals, to at the very least avoid this patent politicalization of the process. And who knows, it might even lead to better administration of justice.
But that’s probably too much to ask for, since “better administration of justice” is not a winning campaign slogan.
