During Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, multiple women came forward to accuse him of sexually assaulting them while they were in high school and college. These claims have sparked nationwide debate over whether Kavanaugh ought to be confirmed to the nation’s high court.
When the Constitution was initially written, the Supreme Court was by far the weakest of the three branches (it did not even have its own building to meet in until 1935). Thus, the Founding Fathers did not envision the Supreme Court becoming a politically divisive branch. However, the judicial branch became increasingly powerful over the centuries and, in the modern day, the Supreme Court possesses immense political strength.
In the past, the Senate would usually confirm whatever candidate the President appointed to the high court as long as he or she possessed sufficient experience and knowledge. However, as the Supreme Court has gained power, the process for selecting new justices has become increasingly partisan. In the past few decades, there have been multiple appointees where senators generally vote along party lines. This trend has continued at the present as almost all Republicans voted to approve Judge Kavanaugh, with Democrats nearly unanimously opposing him.
Those who support voting for justices along party lines claim that partisanship will always be a part of the judiciary branch to some extent. They argue the Senate ought to appoint a judge with a similar ideology of whichever party has a majority in order to represent the will of the people. However, those on the other side argue that high levels of partisanship should not exist in the Supreme Court. They believe this prevents compromise and runs counter to the original intention of the court being a neutral arbiter of the law. What do you think? Has the Supreme Court become too partisan?
Should candidates for public office or elected officials be held accountable for their actions when they were students?