Partisanship on the US Supreme Court

I remember a time when Supreme Court Justices were thought of as impartial interpreters of the law and the Constitution.

The all seemed to change when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987. The objection to Bork's nomination was ferocious, and his nomination was eventually defeated by a vote of 58-42 in the Senate.

Justice Antonin Scalia, a long-serving champion of right-wing policy, was appointed to the Supreme Court a year before Bork was nominated. Scalia's nomination was not as fiercely contested. Bork was seen as a step too far to the Right. 

After the Bork defeat, Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed without much drama or fanfare.

President George H. W. Bush followed up with two staunch right-wing appointments to the court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito couple have been replaced by a couple of rubber stamps. There's no gray area with these two. Any law that benefits the Right receives their unquestioned and immediate approval.

President Obama has nominated some Left-leaning Justices to the court. I have to wonder whether Obama, a constitutional scholar, might have nominated more middle-of-the-road justices had he not felt the need to offset the pure partisanship of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Once Reagan and Bush opened up the Pandora's box of judicial partisanship, the damage was done. The opposition needed to counter with partisan Justices of their own.

With the country entrenched in a profound partisan divide, it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court ever again being viewed as neutral. That, or course, is a shame and a bit of an embarrassment. The court was meant to serve the good of the country, not to favor the objectives of one political party over another.

Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South 

All Rights Reserved