‘incompatible … ideological … considerations’

Another Supreme Court nomination has caught the political attention of both parties. Again we can expect a political theater in the Senate over the confirmation of President Biden’s eventual nominee. Does it have to be that way? Has it always been that way? What’s different now? What can we do about it?

The article below by Ilya Shapiro, VP at the CATO Institute, is enlightening on all these questions. He explains the history of Supreme Court nominations & hearings, the politics that have always existed and why it is different now. Spoiler alert. The difference now vs our entire history are ‘incompatible … ideological … considerations’.

The last few years have shown that the Supreme Court is now covered by the same toxic cloud that has enveloped all of the nation’s public discourse. Although the court is still respected more than most institutions, it’s increasingly viewed through a political lens. What most concerns people is how judicial politics affects the court’s “legitimacy,” so what lessons can we draw from the history of confirmation battles that can improve public confidence going forward?

The most important point is that politics has always been part of the process of selecting judicial nominees and even more part of the process of confirming them.

… the reasons for such controversies in the past few decades are largely unprecedented. While inter- and intra-party politics have always played a role, couching opposition in terms of judicial philosophy is a relatively new phenomenon.

[With] the ideological considerations we see now … [between] the two major parties adopting essentially incompatible judicial philosophies, it’s impossible for a president to find an “uncontroversial” nominee.

More From CATO Institute: