Bill,
I agree with the assertion that politics have always been part of judicial decisions and in the Bork hearings, the Thomas hearings, and the present battles over Bush's judicial appointees, there is politics. I'm not arguing about that. In fact, to the degree that politics were front and center in those debates, I applaud. I disliked the retreat into personal attacks.
I'm talking about the perception of judicial outcomes, decisions, not even the decisions themselves, though we both know there will be some relation. I'm simply arguing that, to the degree, we come to see judicial decisions as completely political and do not bemoan that, to that degree we've moved to another political culture and one that I think is remarkably worse than the one we had four years ago.
As for packing the SC with their allies, Clinton, whom I gather is your target, did not do that. He had few appointees and he worked with Senate republicans in naming his appointees, somethinb Bush has failed to do with the Dems. But I'm not even talking about this process.
It fits in only to the degree that the appointments process is come to be seen as a kind of political spoils one. Support a presidential candidate and then one of the spoils is a judicial appointment. And best remember that when you make your decisions.
I, we all, know that happens. I'm just not looking forward to a political culture which sees that as the nature of the beast and says, ho hum. |
