SC nominations used to be evaluated on merit - when did it change
As Trump is about to nominate a new SC Justice, and virtually all Dems are stating they will vote "No" no matter who it is, or what their qualifications are, I recall that it didn't use to be like this. Nominations used to evaluated on merit, not on partisan crap.
When did it change? My opinion is that it all changed during the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. He was highly qualified (despite the ratty beard) but Dems voted against him anyway. That is the first time I'd ever heard of Senators voting against someone's nomination just because of politics. Things descended from there.
Notice that the first time was started by Dems. And each time things got worse, it was because of the Dems.
Clarence Thomas got put through the ringer by a sketchy accusation by one person, and got a lot of "NOs"
Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sono-whatever got confirmed with 90-plus votes. Alito barely got confirmed. Gorsuch barely got confirmed. Both had equal merit to Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sonia. Notice a pattern?
And don't forget that the only reason the Republicans can get a vote on the next SC Justice is because Harry Reid pulled the nuclear option, back when the Dems had the majority.
Anyway, anyone else have any suggestions on when the hyper-partisanship started?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 - A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but a foolish man's heart directs him to the left.
Wise men don't need advice, and fools won't take it - Ben Franklin
"It's not how you start, it's how you finish."