By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO — I have been disappointed for quite a while about the indecorous way that our United States government goes about deciding who should serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. I don’t lay exclusive blame either on the Republican party or the Democratic party; I blame the spirit of partisanship that has corroded all three branches of our federal government. Instead of people whom we citizens can look up to, Washington is filled with zero-sum game-players who insist that if their side wins, the other must lose. “Compromise” is a word all but banished from America’s political lexicon. And it is a sorry state of affairs.
Yes, Democrats can point to the way that President Barack Obama’s pick for a Supreme Court justice—Merrick Garland—was denied a confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate by the Republican leadership headed by U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. And, now, in essence, Democrats are similarly dismissing without a hearing President Donald J. Trump’s choice of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. The Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, without a single hearing, already has announced he will oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Other Democratic officeholders and organizations have chimed in.
It would be wonderful if Senators would behave the way they say they want judges to behave—with impartiality and fairness, and with a desire to give every nominee who appears before them a courteous hearing. There is nothing wrong with probing a nominee’s views on various issues likely to come before the court to determine whether their previous statements might compromise their ability to judge fairly. However, we ought not to assume that judicial candidates are necessarily wed to the positions that they advocated as attorneys. In our legal system, attorneys often set aside their own personal views to do the best job possible for their clients. When they are elevated to the bench, often they will have a different mindset. At that point, their job is not to advocate but rather to decide, according to a given set or rules and precedents laid down by the Supreme Court since its creation in 1789.
If I had my druthers, Republicans would have allowed Merrick Garland the opportunity of a confirmation hearing, and Democrats, instead of attempting to retaliate against the GOP leadership, would now show the country by their good example the value of civility in the conduct of our public business.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com
This comment from the Jewish Democratic Council of America (in a news release):
JDCA is deeply concerned that, if confirmed by the Senate, Judge Kavanaugh will shift the ideological balance of the Supreme Court as the swing vote on decisions that will turn back the clock on decades of social progress. Such decisions would directly threaten the values that we hold dear as Jews and Democrats, such as a woman’s right to choose, voting rights, separation of church and state, social and economic justice, and environmental protection. The stakes could not be higher