Our political divisions have progressively widened during the past 20 years and is again affecting the third branch of government — the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be nonpartisan, whose duty is to make sure that legislation and government agency actions are constitutional.

The current politicalization of the Supreme Court accelerated in 2016 when the Senate refused to even grant President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing and candidate Trump promised to only appoint judges who would overturn Roe vs. Wade.

It was pushed forward in 2017 when Senate rules were changed to allow the closure of debate with a majority vote instead of the previously 60 and reached a new high with the circus — on both sides — surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process.

Both parties are using the current process for their own ends. Thus we have set the stage for continued partisan in-fighting over all future nominees unless we step back and make an effort to reduce this rancor.

To start, we need to once again require 60 votes for closure for all Supreme Court candidates. This will require cross-party cooperation and consensus and will help return the Supreme Court to its proper position of being nonpartisan.

After all, the Court’s legitimacy rests on the respect of the people that the Court will take a nonpartisan approach to its decisions.

John Wetzel, Holmen

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
6
1
0
0
0

(3) comments

new2Lax

Why is it no one mentions Joe Biden’s brilliant comment on why nominee’s for the Supreme Court should not be nominated during the last year of a Presidency and the nominee should be chosen by the incoming administration.
If that’s not enough, how about Chuck Schumer’s warning to Harry Reid on using the “nuclear” option “ on the Senate floor as did Mitch McConnell. He said this will come back to haunt you and sooner than you might think. Well, there you have it, a purely political move and it backfired. The toothpaste is now out of the tube and these folks now want to play fair. You must pay the consequences for your stupid, political expediency. The Democrats will have an opportunity to make the changes they want on their watch and to me that’s a fair proposition and the least they could do. I’m sure they will think hard the next time around but I doubt it.

Climatehoax

I bet this column wouldn’t have been written if a liberal president had nominated a liberal judge and he/she ended up on the court. Liberals hypocrisy is SOOOOOO evident when they don’t get THEIR way. Elections have consequences, as obama said. I’m sure he didn’t mean it for conservatives when they’re driving the bus. Hypocrite.

Slider

The non-partisanship began with Sen Edward Kennedy's treatment of Robert Bork and since then only Republican Senators have looked at a judge's qualifications before voting for either parties Supreme Court nominees.

Democrat Senators only care about where the nominee is going to vote on abortion. Nothing non-artisan about that!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.

Already a subscriber?
Log in or Activate your account.