[ad_1]
If the president and Republicans in the Senate succeed in replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he will be Donald Trump’s third judge. Since Ronald Reagan does not have a president appointed so many to the Supreme Court of the United States, and Trump does it in a single term.
A clear majority of conservative judges will have an impact in the United States for decades. Decisions on issues such as abortion, labor law, immigration, discrimination, campaign finance, and the right to vote affect both people’s daily lives and the state of the country.
The ideological domicile of the judges today they are expected to color their positions on loaded issues, and it has become increasingly important. This has not always been the case: the importance of party politics for judges is relatively new.
A turning point occurred in 2010, according to a study of judicial politicization by researchers at the William and Mary School of Law. That year, John Paul Stevens, a liberal judge nominated by Republican Gerald Ford, retired.
Stevens was replaced by liberal Elena Kagan, at the suggestion of Barack Obama. This meant that all the judges of the Supreme Court had been appointed for the first time by a president of the same ideological color as the judges themselves. It was something new.
Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump and elected by a narrow majority in the Senate.
Photo: Andrew Harnik / AP
Since then, party politics has only become more important. In recent years, opposition to new justices has been strong in the Senate: the nominations of Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were approved by a minimal margin and votes 54-45 and 50-48, respectively, according to the party lines.
Obama’s two nominations also met with considerable opposition from the Republican side.
If you go back in time The situation was completely different: when Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who became a feminist icon, was approved in 1993, it was with numbers 96-3. In 1986, the very conservative Antonin Scalia received votes in favor of all senators. For many decades, it was the lawyer’s formal qualifications that determined his evaluation; not basic political views. Any opposition had motives other than ideological position: the dislike of Clarence Thomas, which was approved in 1991 under numbers 52-48, was due to accusations of sexual harassment.
The change may be related, the researchers say, to the increasing polarization of the climate in Washington. Until the late 20th century, conservative judges also tended to slide to the left over the years, likely as a result of the liberal environment in DC.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s flag on half-mast outside Congress.
Photo: Jose Luis Magana / AFP
But in law school there was dissatisfaction among conservative students with what was perceived as left-wing dominance in the universities and in the union, and in 1982 the Federalist Society was formed as a platform for conservative lawyers. The organization grew and contributed to a greater ideological breadth in Washington. At the same time, the circuits became more and more homogeneous.
The Federalist Society is hard to overestimate, and it soon became influential by leaving editors in the hands of attorneys the organization believed should land key positions: Trump is not the first to receive long lists of potential judges. Membership in the Federalist Society is a must for any conservative judge with ambitions today.
In the Senate, suspicion over the opposing party’s name has only grown, and Brett Kavanaugh’s turbulent 2018 hearings further fueled the party’s political politicization.
Various judges However, he has protested the description that they were party politicians and emphasized that they are lawyers, not lackeys of politicians:
– When you live in a politically polarized environment, people tend to see everything from that perspective. This is not how we work in court, Chief Justice John Roberts said last year.
For as long as the ideological makeup was even, Roberts has surprised by joining his liberal colleagues in cases involving abortion and same-sex marriage.
The long-term trend however, it goes in the opposite direction, and few doubt that a 6-3 ratio will affect politically charged goals. Stanford researchers warn that the development is damaging confidence in the judiciary, but few believe it will decline and predict that Democrats would do the same as Trump, if they could.
Democrats face an election. Trying to increase the number of justices to create an ideological counterbalance, something Democrats can only do if they gain presidential power and a majority in the Senate, can be easily punished. A less controversial reform would be to limit the time of assignments.
The politicization of the courts it has important consequences. In polarized America, new laws, both at the federal and state levels, are increasingly reaching the courts. They can be private individuals or women’s rights organizations that sue a state for its abortion laws, or human rights organizations that take a state to court for laws related to labor law, discrimination, or the right to vote. .
The result is that the judges, who are appointed but not elected by the people, gain increasing political power.
It also makes the presidential election increasingly important because of what happens to the American courts.
