>but the appalling part is that no one--especially not politicians--is discussing partisanship as a legitimate reason for disqualification...
In fairness, in the modern era, partisanship has been a requirement to be on the Court. Every justice on the court is either liberal or conservative. They would not have been nominated otherwise.
Don't misunderstand me, I agree that maybe partisanship shouldn't be a requirement. I'm just saying that from a pragmatic perspective, it is a requirement. You, unfortunately, can't get nominated if you are not partisan. Even if you could, you certainly would come up against stiff headwinds in the confirmation process. It's just easier to be partisan and have half of those votes on your side no matter what.
Oddly, the same exact process applies for commissioning new judges as applies for commissioning new military officers (either President or Senate subcommittee nominates, the other can veto), but you don't hear about there being any requirement of partisanship for military officers.
sure, partisanship goes into choosing the nominee, but in the past, the nominee’s politics was inferred from their rulings and other written works. but kavanaugh crossed a line into direct partisan bickering that’s unbecoming of a justice.
In fairness, in the modern era, partisanship has been a requirement to be on the Court. Every justice on the court is either liberal or conservative. They would not have been nominated otherwise.
Don't misunderstand me, I agree that maybe partisanship shouldn't be a requirement. I'm just saying that from a pragmatic perspective, it is a requirement. You, unfortunately, can't get nominated if you are not partisan. Even if you could, you certainly would come up against stiff headwinds in the confirmation process. It's just easier to be partisan and have half of those votes on your side no matter what.