I don't know that in the current political climate, the democrats would extend the same courtesy if it happened under their control of the Senate and White House.
Lately I see a lot of people saying things like “this particular example of real behavior is bad and conflicts with my values so should be electorally punished, but my mental model of the other side tells me that they would probably do the same thing if they hypothetically got the opportunity, and so I’m not going to uphold my values.”
I’m surprised that most people in america didn’t see this coming. It’s been clear that “winning” has been the strategy for the republicans and they’ve been doing it consistently for decades now.
They’ve shown up at elections, they’ve shown up for local elections, they’ve worked for every single advantage in power they could get. I mean these are the chaps who suffered a massive electoral defeat to Obama the first time and found their mettle by saying “one term president” like a mantra. They converted that into a fight for every micro meter.
Eventually anyone m would also realize that “winning” (at all costs) is the strategy that works and adopt it. The best strategies get adopted by market players.
The media environment for the past many decades now ensures that bipartisanship won’t work either.
Maybe it’s an incorrect cultural reading on my part,
I don’t disagree with your characterisation, but I do disagree with the idea that it is republicans alone. Unfortunately this has been the way both parties have operated for a long time. The democrats have also done their fair share of abuse of power just in the last 4 years.
The use by Obama of the FBI to investigate his political opponent during a presidential campaign, on a basis of an improbable opposition research report is unprecedented and to say the least, controversial. Imagine the outrage if any republican president had done that.
Not saying this is only the last 4 years. I agree, at least 30 years. But no, it is not the action of a single party.
Was there any indication this was Obama directing the FBI to behave this way, or that this was an established pattern of behavior? There’s a very important difference between a mistake or an error in judgement vs an established pattern of behavior and engagement of illicit behavior by the president himself (as with Trump offering a pardon to Assange to deny ties to Russia in the DNC hack after failing to have Ukraine fallaciously smear Biden).
Sure, but the argument that the Senate shouldn't approve or even consider a Supreme Court nomination in election years because voters should have a voice was made by Mitch McConnell, at a time when not approving a presidential nominee suited him.
I don't think anybody can argue in good faith that it is equally incumbent upon the Democrats to act in a manner consistent with principles argued for and precedents set by Mitch McConnell.
I don’t think anyone could argue that the democrats are acting in good faith pushing for delay now while having pushed for expedition in 2016. Both parties want to shape the supreme court.
I am more annoyed by the fact that the supreme court has become a political arena. Making laws should be the responsibility of the elected legislator. A court, any court, should merely arbitrate on the conformity of legal disputes to these laws. If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court. It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations.
I see the same power grab happening in Europe and am equally worried about it. No power should be given without accountability.
Yes, that's true. But it's important to note that Republicans deviated from this process 4 years ago and will now just resume business as usual while being a lot closer to the actual election than in 2016.
> If they acted that way, no one would really care who gets nominated to the supreme court.
How could this be done? Political issues are in front of the court every day and minute. This makes it immensely political. How could then those mere arbitrators be non-political?
It was always political. It will always be.
> It is because the supreme court has taken the habit of ruling on matters that should be left to the legislator and effectively to make new laws that it has become a bitter fight for nominations.
Uhm. You know this is also something that has been going on forever, especially in every "common law" system.
And in the majority of those cases the SC does only instruct the lower court on that specific case, refraining from creating new law as much as possible.
France is a "civil law" country. Courts there cannot "make new laws", they can only invalidate them. (And as far as I know this applies in general to all civil law countries.)
> France is a "civil law" country. Courts there cannot "make new laws", they can only invalidate them. (And as far as I know this applies in general to all civil law countries.)
The German Supreme Court has, on two occasions, declared new constitutional rights: the right to informational self-determination (when deliberating a census process law) and the right to integrity of data processing systems (when outlaying voting computers). I don't know if that counts though since technically they argued that other constitutional rights implied these rights (but weren't mentioned explicitly because the German Basic Law was drafted in 1949).
Well, clearly both parties seem to have expectations that the court will rule on controversial matters like abortion. The fact that it also declines to examine many other cases doesn’t really change that.
Sure, and controversial laws were submitted for constitutional review everywhere around the world (where there are constitutional courts). And picking judges was always a political thing. Just as picking the top prosecutor. And so on.
