Democrats
and Republicans alike have strained at gnats to obscure the fact that
decisions
regarding the naming of a successor to the late Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about anything more than more impactful than the
future of the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion.
Regardless
of who occupies the White House and regardless which party holds the
Senate majority,
the filling of Supreme Court vacancies and, for the most part, lower
federal appellate court vacancies have been part and parcel to the same
narrow political kabuki dance.
The
media fixation over whether Justice Ginsburg expressed a "dying wish"
that her replacement not
be chosen until after the 2020 presidential election is concluded is
not remotely relevant to the process at hand. That quaint notion frames
the esteem in which many held Justice Ginsburg but has precious little
to do with how the political sausage-making
of federal judicial appointments.
For a truly comprehensive and refreshingly bi-partisan examination of the federal judicial appointment
process, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick of Jackson wrote a thorough article entitled A Survivor's Perspective:
Federal Judicial Selection from George Bush to Donald Trump that was published June 19 in the Notre Dame Law Review, Volume 95, Issue 5, Article 3 (https://scholarship.law.nd.
Mississippians
will remember Southwick's brutal sojourn in the federal judicial
appointment grist
mill. As the title of his law review article indicates, Judge Southwick
ultimately survived the process and was confirmed to the Fifth Circuit
bench in 2007 on a 10-9 vote when Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
of California broke with the Democratic majority
controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As
with many Southern judicial nominees, Southwick – a moderate – was
accused of racism. But as
I wrote at the time, the 2007 opposition to Southwick was all about
abortion: "There are 17 seats on the 5th Circuit, two of which are now
vacant. Of the 15 occupied seats, 11 are held by Republican appointees
of either President Ronald Reagan or the two Presidents
Bush. In other words, the 5th Circuit is a conservative court. The
pro-choice groups don't want any other conservative judge confirmed to
the 5th Circuit."
Outside
groups dominate the political public opinion wars in judicial
confirmation fights. Southwick
writes of their identities and influence in the law review article:
"There are many groups, and I have not sought to discuss any but the
most vocal and well known. A sampling of significant ones includes the
Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way,
American Constitution Society, and the NAACP who work closely with
Democrats, and the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, Judicial
Crisis Network, and Committee for Justice with Republicans.
"These
and other groups are not all involved in the same way in the process,
but they have an impact.
The Federalist Society's significance in the current administration,
though, is unique. The American Bar Association's privileged status as
an evaluator of potential nominees has been the subject of much
controversy. Republicans at times have tried to alter
the ABA's ability to screen individuals before nomination, but the
evaluations still get done," Southwick observed.
Appointment
to the U.S. Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, as the courageous
Justice Ginsburg
bravely demonstrated by carrying on her duties in the face of
debilitating illness, advancing age, and other challenges. That is why,
in an era of extreme political division, that neither Republicans nor
Democrats would forego an opportunity to put a jurist
of their liking on the nation's highest court.
With
a few exceptions, the high court usually split 5-4 to the conservative
side of issues with
Ginsburg on the bench. Replacing her with a Trump appointee will
install a 6-3 conservative majority. That fact is why the Ginsburg
replacement is so hotly contested and why Democratic objections on
timing will almost certainly be ignored. And if Democrats
held the advantage that the GOP has now, they would undoubtedly use it.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
9 comments:
We need more Leslie Southwicks. Conservative but rational.
Sid Salter has this weird habit of explaining things like you’re 5 while using words only someone who just studied for the ACT would know
Nothing is more important in the realm of politics or economics than the ability to influence, or better yet, to control judges. It is the Holy Grail of both parties and of every lawyer from his first day at law school. Congress ain't worth a damn and our president is probably a maniac but God help us if our Supreme Court becomes a joke.
This is more clown world theater for the proles. What they dont want is to have some articles about where the last trillion dollars they printed (borrowed from taxpayes) went because they are about to print(steal) another trillion from taxpayers and pass it out to their champagne and limousine friends. Meanwhile they keep us arguing over semiautomatic rifles and abortion rights for immoral women. They create the fear and herd us like cattle in the directions they want.
There will be at least 2 new members of the court shortly if they confirm the current Nominee.
Their actions will cause a landslide swing across the board giving them the mandate to do so.
It's in all our interests to have impartial judges , not ideologs. We used to know that.
Yes, Roe v Wade is the political football despite that the majority of Americans have supported it since it passed. Perhaps that is because a majority of Americans are women and it affects women except for the small number of women who never have to worry about it or think they won't or who never have really gotten into the specifics of procreation or sex or history enough to know what they should fear.
But, for women who have, it's as simple as thinking that we should have control over our own health choices. We think we are equal when it comes to brains and/or the ability to consult those we trust on our own.
Perhaps if women could force men not to have procedures or not to take treatments that will leave them sterile or prevent their cancers from growing faster, we might be pro-life.
Or if we could be more successful forcing men to impregnate us through use of physical force because we want a child and don't have a willing participant or just because we want sex or power.
Maybe we if we had certainty men will actually share in taking care of their children in tasks as well as financially, we might be less supportive of Roe v Wade.
Maybe if some of us hadn't also figured out that some religions based doctrine on the idea they could force women to create more followers than they could through persuasion. That also applies for creating more adherents to cults or political philosophies and ideologies. There is power in numbers. We get that. We just don't want to be an involuntary breeding tool especially since we can die in the process.
Most of us see that men are in the majority when it comes to government and see what you really want is control over women to keep them submissive or less of a threat or an obstacle or competitor to male ambitions, power and desires.
As for me, I was an adult before Roe v Wade and saw the carnage of male and government decision making forced on women. Few of my female friends ever were told that kind of secret or knew anyone women who died in childbirth or in trying to survive pregnancy. Few Southern women in the middle class or above dealt with people who were much less fortunate other than in charity fund raising or dropping off gifts. They missed the nitty gritty of life of the lives of some in their schools or who worked in their homes.I used to ask my friends if they knew the causes women died in childbirth. They can't and assume that can't happen anymore. News flash, even with Roe v Wade maternity deaths are increasing so we are now at last place with other developed nations in maternity survival. We used to be first.
And, God forbid anyone Pro-life would bother to know the survival rates , life spans and percentage of life long (even painful) disabilities of those who babies forced into NICU by law or take into consideration, that few of those parents can carry the burden to make sure those children have the care they need.
Yo Sid, news flash...ALL federal district court judges enjoy lifetime appointments, not just justices of the Supreme Court. Note: This does not include federal "magistrate judges," who receive 8-year appointments.
I still think Sid should pay kingfish for posting his in depth intellectual "observations" on JJ.
Now back to Robert St. John's cool article about pancakes.
Yes 10:24 and it's a shame that so many refuse to recognize the obvious. Hot button issues and Wall St rule in politics and 60% of the US was one pay check away from being in the bread lines until recently but every day the lines get longer.
Post a Comment