SCOTUS nominations have become political? Only since Bork.

If you have an extra 3 hours and 21 minutes on your hand watch the important part of the Bork confirmation hearings:

There is absolutely no question that Judge Bork was well read, well qualified, and in all respects well suited to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, except that he was a conservative. Just listen to Biden and Kennedy question him. There is no principled disagreement with his reasons, just "OMG, you mean you don't find this right in the Constitution!!!"

Pure politics is the only reason Bork was denied a seat on the Supreme Court. The handwringing over Obama’s nominee not getting a hearing can be traced back to 1987.

Further, the guy is absolutely correct. He talks about Shelley v. Kramer. He says he is opposed to racially restrictive covenants, but to say that enforcing private contracts amounts to state action would make every private action, if enforced, subject to the 14th amendment. Solid thinking, but blasted for it by Biden.

The bottom line is that the left drew a line in the sand on Bork, and the right is doing it with Obama. Nothing new here.

Bork’s nomination was voted on by the Senate. It was declined 58-42.

Garland’s nomination has not been voted on by the Senate.

Why is that an important distinction? If it is clear that a nominee will be rejected, again only for political reasons, shouldn’t we save the taxpayers a few pennies and dispense with the hearings?

If you can’t see the distinction between a Supreme Court nominee that the Senate votes on and a Supreme Court nominee that the Senate refuses to even begin the process of voting on, I can’t think of any way to explain it to you.

Because until there’s a vote, we can’t know that.

Everyone said Clarence Thomas couldn’t get approved by the Senate after Anita Hill. Turns out when the votes were in…he was. The world’s a funny place, after all.

And I’m pretty sure that the reason Garland can’t get a vote isn’t because he’ll lose. He won’t get a vote because leadership is afraid he’ll win.

Why not dispense with hearings forever? Hell, why have a supreme court? It’s expensive. Why have a legislature? That’s expensive too.

Brilliant reasoning.

Because the Garland nomination isn’t being held up over his politics, it’s being held up because the Republican majority refuses to accept the fact that he has been nominated.

If it is clear that a defendant will be found guilty, shouldn’t we save the taxpayers a few pennies and dispense with the trial?
In any case I do not object to the Senate rejecting someone for being too extreme in political perspective, after having had a chance to fully and publicly demonstrate that such is the case. That, arguably from a conservative’s POV, was what happened with Bork. He did after all oppose established SCOTUS precedents including " the Supreme Court’s one man, one vote decision on legislative apportionment", “a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples” and also opposed “the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races.” He was not within one or even two standard deviations of moderate. He was extreme. But he got his hearing and odds are if he had performed well, a few, enough, conservative Southern Democrats would have jumped ship in face of public opinion to approve him. He did not.

And as noted, Garland’s very moderate politics were not known when it was declared that no matter who Obama nominated there would be no hearing.

You’re right Bork was political. His nomination was pure payment for his explicit help in trying to help silence the Watergate scandal investigation. Of course, some people have no shame and focus on the politics that blocked him instead.

Yes, but he’s wrong in suggesting Bork was the first time it was political.

Yes, except it is clear that Garland would be confirmed if the vote happened. Which is why the vote can’t happen, because Obama.

Definitely wrong.

It was 225 years ago when George Washington’s nomination of John Rutledge for Chief Justice was rejected by the Senate, even though he had been a recess appointment and had already served successfully as Chief Justice for one term.

The reason for his rejection was entirely political: he was a Jeffersonian supporter, and publicly spoke very stridently against Alexsnder Hamilton’s Jsy treaty with Great Britain.

Why does the Senate have hearings, which contribute to the politicisation of the process? Answer is that the Senate never had them until Wilson nominated Brandeis, which triggered great political opposition from conservatives. The Brandeis hearing was the first time in history that the Senate held a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee, hoping to garner enough opposition to sink it.

So if you’re asking when the nomination process got politicised, you have to go back a century.

It may still happen, because Trump.

*Every *nomination is political even if they usually haven’t been contested much. The Court is a political body which makes law. That’s its purpose and function, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Hearings and debates about them are healthy when done honestly and responsibly (which is why they aren’t happening either this time). Partisan extremist nominations like Bork’s or Scalia’s aren’t contested often enough.

Prior to Brandeis, the Senate normally confirmed by an up-and-down vote, sometimes held on the same day they got the nomination from the President.

They took four months to confirm Brandeis, which was the longest period up to that time.

Politicisation happened a long time before Bork.

Bork was found to have acted illegally in firing Archibald Cox in Nixon’s attempt to derail the Watergate investigation. Such an action in my view disqualifies him from being a Supreme Court Justice. Are there examples of conspirators to obstruct justice getting on the Supreme Court?

Cite, please?

Nader v Bork

Thanks. Had not seen that before.

Are you seriously stating that this was the reason that Bork’s confirmation was voted down? What was the point of Kennedy and Biden’s questioning about the right to privacy cases? What was the point of Kennedy’s slanderous speech regarding “Robert Bork’s America” where blacks sit at segregated lunch counters?

My point was that Bork was absolutely qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Because he would have been a conservative Justice, he was denied. Whether he was denied as a result of an up or down vote, or was simply not granted a vote, the result is the same.

The Senate has the power under the Constitution to set its own rules, including the procedure to approve or not approve nominations. Even if Garland could get a few Republicans to flip, and say, wins confirmation on a 51-49 vote, it still does not mean that Senate procedure must allow that. And the reason that the Senate won’t allow it? Politics.

The left cannot complain of politicizing the process when it did so in Bork’s case in such a shameful fashion.

And yes, this did happen over 100 years ago because the Court became activist in the wake of the Lochner decision. The Warren Court likewise caused more politicization. This Court in Obergefell went beyond those. If the Court wants to act like a legislature, then it gets treated like one. And as shown by the Bork hearings, this is nothing new, contrary to the protests of the left.