For much more on the topic of the role of the Supreme Court, visit this page. Here is Travis Weber writing at The Federalist:
For the sake of our political system, we must re-embrace the balance of power the Constitution originally envisioned.
If there is anything our country has learned from the hype, drama, and antics surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, it is that the Supreme Court is far too important in our nation’s political system. The high price we pay for politicizing the confirmation process includes not only destroyed trust in our system of government or the decorum of the Senate, but also the totally unnecessary emotional toll on families like those of Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford.
It wasn’t always this way. Supreme Court nominations rarely used to be politically controversial. Between 1894 and 1968, the Senate rejected only one nominee. When Justice Byron White was confirmed in 1962, his hearing lasted 90 minutes, and he was confirmed just two weeks after his nomination.
What could account for this shift? Starting in the 1960s, the court began increasingly deciding social policy for the entire nation. In a country with stark social divisions, it’s no wonder that one side will always be upset at the court’s decisions in these matters—and begin to use the nominations process to effect the result they want.
These days, those on both sides of the aisle have many of the same issues in mind when the president puts forward a judicial nominee—abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, privacy rights, the role of race in admissions, and immigration, among others. A number of these recent cases have been decided by one vote—Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), Schuette v. BAMN and Fisher v. Texas (race as a factor in college admissions). Others—such as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (5-3 vote on abortion regulations)—were hotly divided.
Read more: The Federalist
Image credit: www.thefederalist.com.