Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death at the age of 87 reminds us that it wasn’t all that long ago that we could disagree with people without being disagreeable.
From 1970 through 1994, the Supreme Court confirmation process was unusually bipartisan. For much of the United States’ history before 1970, court confirmations were more likely to resemble our recent experiences.
Yes, there were failed nominations, withdrawals, and some closer votes, yet for most of that 25-year period the court was respected and relatively apart from open political partisanship.
Ginsburg was confirmed to the court August 3, 1993 by a vote of 96-3. She had been nominated on June 22. Today, that relatively quick process seems like fiction. Less than a year later, Stephen G. Breyer was confirmed 87-9 on July 29, 1994. It might seem like ancient history, but Justice Ginsburg’s close friend, Antonin Scalia, had been confirmed 98–0 on September 17, 1986.
It was only after the administration of Bill Clinton that close confirmations returned to the norm of history: closer and more partisan.
My view remains consistent: the Senate should confirm presidential nominations except when the nominee is unqualified or demonstrably morally unfit. Hearings and votes should be swift, since most nominees are known, especially in today’s saturated media. There’s no excuse for hearings and votes to occur later than 45 days from nomination for any position.
Republicans committed a horrible wrong by not holding hearings and a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. He was qualified and should have been overwhelmingly confirmed.
I don’t agree with some of Merrick Garland’s interpretations of the Constitution. That’s not the point. He is a legal scholar and I am not. He was and is highly qualified to serve on the Court. Barack Obama was president and should have been shown the respect the office deserves.
By blocking Garland, which was certainly legal, the Republicans returned us to the tribalistic past at a time when the nation needs unification.
Scalia and Ginsburg didn’t agree on Constitutional matters. They were close and loyal friends. They respected each other. They didn’t reject opposing views as “stupid” or “evil.” These legal giants — and they both had incredible intellects — understand it was possible to disagree and not assume the other view was motivated by some dark motives.
The 2000 election did a lot of damage to our institutions, even though I believe the final outcome was likely no matter what the Supreme Court ruled. If anything, the Court should have found a way to let vote counting continue with a unified standard in Florida. According to most analyses, George. W. Bush would have still be elected because of issues with voting in Florida.
The Supreme Court didn’t do the wise thing and stay out of the Florida mess. The Court might have ruled correctly (and I believe it did in both the 7-2 and 5-4 rulings), but they did the wrong thing. Yes, you can be right and still be guilty of poor judgement.
Since 2000, the Supreme Court has slowly recovered in public opinion polls. It is once again the clear “favorite” of a majority of Americans, considered more dedicated to what is best for all citizens than the president or Congress.
Why would the Republicans want to keep damaging the one institution that a majority trusts? The other two branches need the legitimacy of the Court.
Ginsburg deserves to be honored. Republicans should do the right thing and honor her memory by trying to make amends for the Garland disgrace. Yes, they pushed Brett Kavanaugh onto the Court, but at a high cost.
Leave the Ginsburg seat empty until at least after the November election. If Donald Trump wins, then let him have his best qualified appointee on the bench. If Trump loses, the court will function fine with eight justices for a few months.
I don’t really want Joe Biden to name the next Supreme Court justice, but that would be the right result of he were to win the election in a few short weeks.
Sadly, I have no faith Republicans will do what is morally right. They will do what is legal and politically expedient.
