It's obvious that Trump has taken the view that precedence is of little importance. From ignoring supboenas, to tax returns, to acting department heads, to a lack of political correctness and protocol, etc. He was elected in large part, by people that wanted less political correctness. From rules of order, to decorum, to nominations, to court rulings themselves, precedence has been a cornerstone of how our government functions since our founding fathers. The nomination and approval of judges has become a battleground of sorts for this system of precedence. It goes way back in history to the Marbury vs Madison case and the ruling resulting in the principle of judicial review.
The framers of the Constitution almost disregarded the establishment of guidelines for the court. The increased power exercised by the Supreme Court, as well as lifetime terms, has made it a major player, maybe the biggest player of all, in our government. Their sex, race, and recently, age and political loyalties have become as important as their experience and legal knowledge. Who wouldn't like the power to be one of a few who can determine validity of laws and executive actions for a lifetime without the risk of being fired? The lifetime term was to guarantee more independence from political whims of different administrations. Youth, once viewed as a negative, is now regarded as a key to continued power.
For most of our history, despite a few reversals, courts have relied on precedence as the basis for rulings and exhibited reluctance to overturn past decisions. And precedence played a major role in how judges were nominated and approved. The last few years has thrown things in to disarray. Dems are still upset that Reps stonewalled OBama's pick in 2016. Others to the increasing investigations in to the personal lives of nominees. In an era where accusations and conspiracies take on a life of their own, a hearings have become political battleground. Many times it's used to try to get a more moderate selection from a president if he's from a different party. The 2016 maneuver was against past precedence of how long a nominee could be ignored. However it succeeded their wildest dreams when Trump won and let them flip the court. They promptly proclaimed a new precedent that no nominee should be approved in an election year. It remains how many still regard that precedence as valid. There is no arguing that having a new judge by the next inauguration is legal. There's also nothing to prevent the Senate from stonewalling a presidential nominee of any type for one year, two, or even his entire term. Of course, something of that magnitude would probably end up in front of the Court, who themselves relied much on precedence for their jobs.
With another impending nominee, we are now looking at a dominating 6-3 majority. Of course, such a rushed appointment is once again breaking precedence. Legal yes, appropriateness depending on your affiliation. In any event, the outrage Dems is palpable. This reversal by Reps exercise in the use of power over precedence and totally inappropriate. The power this gives Republicans outweighs any breaks in precedence and a harsh lesson Dems will remember.
The Republican party has been galvanized since day one of Trump's election. It isn't a reach to believe that a nomination will galvanize the Dems. If it does and Biden wins, it probably comes with a Democratic Senate. As such, the power to reverse what they believe should still be a 5-4 liberal majority, but instead is a 6-3 conservative court, is in their hands. Reps are already suggesting that a move to increase the number to 11 would break precedence. Wonder how they will feel if the number is increased to 13 to give the liberals the control they believe should be there anyway? Lord help us. All this might end up in the courts. LOL.
The framers of the Constitution almost disregarded the establishment of guidelines for the court. The increased power exercised by the Supreme Court, as well as lifetime terms, has made it a major player, maybe the biggest player of all, in our government. Their sex, race, and recently, age and political loyalties have become as important as their experience and legal knowledge. Who wouldn't like the power to be one of a few who can determine validity of laws and executive actions for a lifetime without the risk of being fired? The lifetime term was to guarantee more independence from political whims of different administrations. Youth, once viewed as a negative, is now regarded as a key to continued power.
For most of our history, despite a few reversals, courts have relied on precedence as the basis for rulings and exhibited reluctance to overturn past decisions. And precedence played a major role in how judges were nominated and approved. The last few years has thrown things in to disarray. Dems are still upset that Reps stonewalled OBama's pick in 2016. Others to the increasing investigations in to the personal lives of nominees. In an era where accusations and conspiracies take on a life of their own, a hearings have become political battleground. Many times it's used to try to get a more moderate selection from a president if he's from a different party. The 2016 maneuver was against past precedence of how long a nominee could be ignored. However it succeeded their wildest dreams when Trump won and let them flip the court. They promptly proclaimed a new precedent that no nominee should be approved in an election year. It remains how many still regard that precedence as valid. There is no arguing that having a new judge by the next inauguration is legal. There's also nothing to prevent the Senate from stonewalling a presidential nominee of any type for one year, two, or even his entire term. Of course, something of that magnitude would probably end up in front of the Court, who themselves relied much on precedence for their jobs.
With another impending nominee, we are now looking at a dominating 6-3 majority. Of course, such a rushed appointment is once again breaking precedence. Legal yes, appropriateness depending on your affiliation. In any event, the outrage Dems is palpable. This reversal by Reps exercise in the use of power over precedence and totally inappropriate. The power this gives Republicans outweighs any breaks in precedence and a harsh lesson Dems will remember.
The Republican party has been galvanized since day one of Trump's election. It isn't a reach to believe that a nomination will galvanize the Dems. If it does and Biden wins, it probably comes with a Democratic Senate. As such, the power to reverse what they believe should still be a 5-4 liberal majority, but instead is a 6-3 conservative court, is in their hands. Reps are already suggesting that a move to increase the number to 11 would break precedence. Wonder how they will feel if the number is increased to 13 to give the liberals the control they believe should be there anyway? Lord help us. All this might end up in the courts. LOL.
