The NYTimes is confused as usual

New York TimesIf fate were to hand President Trump one more opportunity to put a justice on the court before 2021, it would almost certainly again be a bitterly contested and close vote, and it would probably leave us with a majority of Supreme Court justices, five, who were confirmed by senators who received a minority share of the vote.

This sort of thing has never happened, by the way, with nominees advanced by Democratic presidents. First, no Democratic president has ever taken office after losing the popular vote. And second, justices nominated by Democrats have never been confirmed by such narrow margins. Of the four liberals currently on the court, all received 63 votes or more, from senators winning and representing clear majorities of their voters.

The author thinks this means the Republican justices are less legitimate. What is actually means is that Republican Senators are more bipartisan. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the author doesn't understand that the role of the court is primarily to decide legal issues, and secondarily to serve as a dispassionate check on majority rule rather than an enforcement tool of the majority.

Unfortunately the court has also forgotten this, though there are hopes that may improve with Trump's second Justice.

This entry was published Mon Oct 08 02:38:46 CDT 2018 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2018-10-07 02:26:03.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.