If you want to understand why the court has lost its credibility then just consider the games played by McConnell to get enough judges to overturn Roe. When the public sees the makeup of the court as dependent upon politics then it loses confidence in its judgments. Did you go after either Reid or McConnell for removing the judicial filibuster?
The Court has not lost its credibility due to anything the Court has done. This "lost credibility" is due to a decades-long smear campaign from the Left. That so many have fallen for it is a tell-tale of its effectiveness.
No. Look at the polls which measure the credibility of the court and the timeframe in which the drop happened. I thought Bork deserved to be turned down based upon his own words and decisions. When someone upholds a company which insisted that employees be sterilized to keep their jobs, something's wrong there. When someone doesn't understand why government sponsored school prayer doesn't run afoul of the first amendment, something's wrong there. Bork "borked" himself.
Prior to Bork, the Senate judged candidates based on qualifications, and Bork was eminently qualified. It is the Democrats who, starting with Bork, politicized the confirmation process. That is the history and the precedent, and the Democrats own it.
Sorry but Bork was so extreme and open about his views, you can't expect others not to take that into consideration. I don't recall the Dems getting rid of the judicial filibuster for SC nominations. Who did that and why did they do that? If you answer that question, you'll understand why so much of the public sees the court's decisions as driven by politics.
Oh, so it's OK for the Dems to play rules games, but not the other side? The Dems practically invited McConnell to act as he did by eliminating the filibuster for lower judicial appointments.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap. This is why I've been cautioning for years against the sorts of rules shenanigans the Left has pursued - no team is ever in power forever.
I wasn't happy with Reid's and McConnell's stance on judicial filibusters. It was wrong in both cases. And now we're reaping the consequences. Bork brought it on himself. I was around back then and you can still watch online the videos of the hearings. When you publicly avow extreme positions then you shouldn't be surprised when you get pushback.
The Left is relentless. Should this weak jab fail to land, as I suspect it will, they will continue to drain public confidence in the court through propaganda until they feel they can try again. The answer is an American public better educated in the fundamentals of our government. That is less likely to occur than the left's court packing schemes, I'm afraid.
If you want to understand why the court has lost its credibility then just consider the games played by McConnell to get enough judges to overturn Roe. When the public sees the makeup of the court as dependent upon politics then it loses confidence in its judgments. Did you go after either Reid or McConnell for removing the judicial filibuster?
The Court has not lost its credibility due to anything the Court has done. This "lost credibility" is due to a decades-long smear campaign from the Left. That so many have fallen for it is a tell-tale of its effectiveness.
Did you object to Robert Bork being "Borked?"
No. Look at the polls which measure the credibility of the court and the timeframe in which the drop happened. I thought Bork deserved to be turned down based upon his own words and decisions. When someone upholds a company which insisted that employees be sterilized to keep their jobs, something's wrong there. When someone doesn't understand why government sponsored school prayer doesn't run afoul of the first amendment, something's wrong there. Bork "borked" himself.
Prior to Bork, the Senate judged candidates based on qualifications, and Bork was eminently qualified. It is the Democrats who, starting with Bork, politicized the confirmation process. That is the history and the precedent, and the Democrats own it.
Sorry but Bork was so extreme and open about his views, you can't expect others not to take that into consideration. I don't recall the Dems getting rid of the judicial filibuster for SC nominations. Who did that and why did they do that? If you answer that question, you'll understand why so much of the public sees the court's decisions as driven by politics.
Oh, so it's OK for the Dems to play rules games, but not the other side? The Dems practically invited McConnell to act as he did by eliminating the filibuster for lower judicial appointments.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap. This is why I've been cautioning for years against the sorts of rules shenanigans the Left has pursued - no team is ever in power forever.
Bork didn't deserve the treatment he got.
I wasn't happy with Reid's and McConnell's stance on judicial filibusters. It was wrong in both cases. And now we're reaping the consequences. Bork brought it on himself. I was around back then and you can still watch online the videos of the hearings. When you publicly avow extreme positions then you shouldn't be surprised when you get pushback.
Well said! One of your very best…
The Left is relentless. Should this weak jab fail to land, as I suspect it will, they will continue to drain public confidence in the court through propaganda until they feel they can try again. The answer is an American public better educated in the fundamentals of our government. That is less likely to occur than the left's court packing schemes, I'm afraid.