How the Supreme Court will change after the nuclear option.
If the filibuster can no longer be used to defeat a judicial nominee, the immediate effect is to lodge the confirmation power in whatever party has a majority of senators. That party therefore need make no concessions to the other and indeed can, if it wishes, pay absolutely no attention to arguments against confirmation made by the minority power, however cogent those arguments.
Were the quality of the nominee (intelligence, experience, fair-mindedness, etc.) the basis on which individuals are nominated for federal judicial offices, the elimination of the filibuster would have diminished—maybe very little—significance. In that case, both members of the Senate majority and members of the Senate minority could be expected to base their confirmation votes on quality, and would often agree on the quality of the nominees. But nowadays persons are not nominated for a federal judgeship (whether a district court judgeship, a court of appeals judgeship, or membership on the Supreme Court) on the basis of quality. Quality may figure, but the dominant influence is politics, primarily the politics of the president.
In part because each federal judicial officer has law clerks, usually four in the case both of federal appellate judges and Supreme Court justices, a judge or justice’s judicial opinions are likely to be of acceptable quality even if the judge or justice is not a skilled writer or sharp thinker. If you ask yourself whether the nine justices are nine of the best 100 or, for that matter, 1,000 American lawyers, the answer probably is no, as there are a total of more than 1 million American lawyers. The top 1 percent of the 1 million would be 10,000, a number that doubtless includes a number of lawyers who are superior to the current justices.
The current method of appointing justices (as well as lower court federal judges) does not select for the best, yet the filibuster could be regarded as a means of promoting enhanced quality of appointments. To prevent a filibuster, or at least prevent the filibustering senators from succeeding in blocking a nominee by the president of the opposite party, the senators of the party of the nominating president would be under pressure to ask the president to withdraw the nominee and nominate someone who would be acceptable to enough of the filibustering party to enable the new nominee to be confirmed. The resulting compromise between the opposing parties could be expected to enhance the quality of successful nominees, for the quality of a nominee would be a factor that both parties would be willing to take into account.
One can imagine a senator of one party saying to himself: I would have preferred our nominee to win the Senate for confirmation, but since he’s blocked by the filibuster by the other party, I’m willing to compromise on a nominee who, being of outstanding quality, can be expected to be a fair-minded judge or justice rather than an ideologue. Half a win is better than a loss.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:关于我们)
- ·CrowdStrike outage is still causing hundreds of flight cancellations daily
- ·Samsung Galaxy S23 vs. iPhone 14: Comparing specs and prices
- ·联合国儿童基金会官员赴芦山灾区督导工作
- ·Ruthless Serena grabs 100th US Open win as record title nears
- ·Malan retires from international cricket
- ·荥经地税扎实开展“营改增”试点行业税收清理
- ·天地馈赠成就富饶湛江!湛江农海产品,邀世界共享
- ·Reddit flooded the homepage with net neutrality news on Tuesday
- ·We Cannot Live Without Cryptography!
- ·热了一周 昨日拉响高温橙色警报
- ·From Prairie Grasslands to Man
- ·我市著名画家耿继斌亮相川台《巴蜀画谈》
- ·Norway moves closer to banning sales of gas
- ·我市著名画家耿继斌亮相川台《巴蜀画谈》
- ·厚植精神文明沃土 培树司法文明新风
- ·雅安蒙顶山下原山别墅 来自意大利的小镇风情
- ·荥经地税扎实开展“营改增”试点行业税收清理
- ·How to unearth all your old unread emails in Gmail's Priority Inbox
- ·22 Unusual Things You Can Find in the Desert
- ·Moon says US