I’d ask y’all if you know what’s bugging me, but I’d hate to set you up for failure with such a broad, generic and vague question.
In case the title of the post leads you down a Beatles themed path…I’m currently distracted by Trump’s and the Senate Ratpublicans urgent pursuit of a replacement for RBG.
I’m bothered by the potential that our country’s indefensibly yet insistently and incessantly arguably worst President could see three new SCOTUS justices seated in his first – and what is looking solidly like his only – term.
Setting aside the Merrick Garland debacle from 2016, which is somewhat defensible on precedent from what I gather. No president has seen a SCOTUS nominee confirmed in the last year of their presidency in the past 80 years. Mind you, the 2016 incident lasted 7 months. Trump nominated a replacement within his first six months. The bench carried an open seat for over a year following Scalia’s death.l before Trump was gifted what could have been Obama’s third nominee to the court.
But, ok…McTurtle denied Obama – inarguably the best president of my lifetime – the privilege of a third nominee on the court.
So what if that opportunity was possibly traded to Trump – inarguably the president that will be viewed by history as the worst US president?
So what if this could be the first president since Reagan who names a third justice to the bench? In his – hopefully – only term, versus Reagan’s or Obama’s two term.
And who cares if it due to McConnell’s shitty politicking?
But the injustice of these politics only bugs me from another vantage point…
What bugs me is that a potential justice to our country’s Supreme Court wouldn’t refuse to participate on principle.
Mind you, I’m not surprised that shitty right-leaning citizens are selfish and opportunistic.
The proudest simply are.
But a candidate for SCOTUS who takes themselves and the job they are put up for seriously?
I’d expect a serious candidate to publicly decline a nomination on precedent. If no other president has had a SCOTUS nominee sit for a Senate confirmation in 80 years – especially with less than a month between the start of hearings and the General Election – then I’d expect a jurist candidate who takes themselves and the precedence under which our country’s laws are to seriously to recuse themselves from consideration for this role.
Someone put up for the role in these specific circumstances who doesn’t bow out in deference to precedence?
Regardless of party affiliation of the nominee or the party of the nominating president, there’s no way I could trust a judge who blithely disregards precedence in favor of their own advancement to the big bench as an impartial arbiter of our country’s constitution and laws.