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.
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.