The Supreme Court Hypocrisy Cuts Both Ways

Post Reply New Topic

Right now we're hearing a lot about the hypocrisy of the Republicans and Mitch McConnell as we should. McConnell is applying a completely different standard than 4 years ago. But enter this article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/opinions ... index.html

This article attacks Mitt Romney for what sin, for saying he would fairly consider a nominee put before him.

"Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications."

Romney furthermore states that he thinks that Garland was treated unfairly:

“That the Merrick Garland decision was unfair, and so therefore it has to be made up by doing something which also wouldn't make a lot of sense — which is saying to President Trump you can't get your nominee, either — that just doesn't follow.”

Such statements would be cheered by Democrats 4 years ago. Mitch McConnell is a hypocrite, but so are Democrats criticizing Romney for saying he'd consider the president's nominee

First and foremost I think the Court should be an apolitical organisation completely removed from electoral politics - but as that would require a constitutional amendment, I’m arguing for shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Given the state of the constitution, I believe candidates should be assessed on their personal qualities and professional qualifications alone, with no consideration of ideology- but perhaps this is naive.

I don’t think this is hypocrisy. If the Democrats had their way in 2016 and Garland was appointed, but then tried to block an appointment now, that would be hypocrisy. Sticking with the precedent that the Republicans have established, and holding the Republicans to that precedent, is not hypocrisy.

That said, blaming Romney seems to miss the mark. Romney was not a Senator in 2016. He seems to effectively be getting blamed because his vote to convict Trump has flagged him as a potential rebel, but the bad guys here are really the likes of McConnell, Chuck Grassley, and Lindsey Graham, who have gone back on their word.

Having said that, I don’t think Romney has helped himself with his words. Firstly he cites some long established precedent, but one only needs to go back to 1988 to find a Democratic senate confirming a Republican President’s nominee, Justice Kennedy (admittedly after spiking Robert Bork). Furthermore, Romney references his perception of the court’s ideology, and how he believes the court should move to the right. This does not suggest he is acting from first principles. Not to say he isn’t doing so, but he hasn’t portrayed himself particularly favourably.

The supreme court is a bloody business and that likely won't change.In the old days with Biden chairing the judiciary committee and Ted Kennedy on the JC as the lion of the senate things were hard for conservatives.

Now things have swung in the repub's direction but such has always been a ugly business.

@The_Walrus

There's a fine line here.

To me complaining about Republicans changing the rules when it suits them is fair game. Complaining about Republicans doing exactly what Democrats wanted them to do in 2016 is hypocritical.

Wouldn't it be nice if the US had *actual* courts of law… and not this "Third Chamber of Congress" thingy?

Ok,elaborate,what specifically do you mean,other than the fact that American courts are less efficient than Western European courts,explain you view.I know your from Denmark which I can dig because my dad's family was Danish.

The American courts are designed to take a really long time to come to the absolute truth a minimize innocent convictions or to overturn wrongful conviction in a appellate context.But there not real efficient.

Distressing as the trend in politicization of the process has become, I don't see it this way.

I think even in the modern age the most common decision in a supreme court is 9-0, unanimous agreement of the justices. This is because the justice's are all skilled jurists who tend to agree with each other more often than they disagree. Of course 9-0 rulings don't get as much attention as the infamous 5-4 splits.

People have strong feelings about some of the justices but all of them are impeccably credentialed with years of experience in the law. The same cannot be said for the other two branches of government, where we have a reality tv star in the white house and a 30 year old bartender as one of the most prominent members of congress.

Justices also are independent once they get on the bench. I'm certain Trump was unhappy with some of Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's rulings this past session, but they don't answer to him and he can't do a thing about it.

I think chief justice Roberts has been the biggest disappointment for conservatives,he was supposed to be a republicans dream but has been centrist, would be being generous.

Harry Reid a Democrat is the one who changed the rules that is allowing this to happen he reduced the number of votes required for a justice approval from 60 to 51 so the Senate could approve judges Obama nominated the Republicans were able to amend the nuclear option initiated by the Democrats to include SCOTUS