Confirmation Wars and Constitutional Authority, Part II
The Senate is free to process judicial nominations however its members so choose, and mental gymnastics are not required.
Judge Merrick Garland, chief justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia visiting Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on Tuesday, April 5, 2016 after his nomination to the Supreme Court (Credit: Ron Sachs / CNP /MediaPunch / Alamy Stock Photos).The Ideological Blinders of Court Packing Proponents
Panorama of the United States Supreme Court at dusk in Washington DC, USA (Joe Ravi/Shutterstock.com).Why the Supreme Court Is Activating the Passive Virtues
U.S. Supreme Court chambers (stock_photo_world / Shutterstock.com).Garland’s “Centrism” Is No Reason for Confirmation
Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, has been touted as a centrist on the court of appeals. Whatever reasons there are to confirm him, that should not be one of them.
First, the centrism of a lower court judge is likely an illusion. He is bound by Supreme Court precedent and thus has limited ability to change the status quo. Thus, he tends to be centrist simply by virtue of his position. To be sure, there are some lawless circuit judges, who do not make a good faith effort to follow Supreme Court precedent, but they are relatively few. And none of these could be serious candidates for the Supreme Court, where a record of reversal and obvious disobedience would be seized on by the opposition.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was pretty faithful in applying precedents when she, like Garland, was on the D.C. circuit. And she too was praised as centrist. But on the Supreme Court she has led the left on the Court. Some of her rulings and views are in fact outlandish, if not Orwellian.
