Supreme Court’s road down a partisan path

I was flattered to be mentioned by two letter writers on January 14th. In response:

Yes, I also took civics in 8th grade, and understand that the Supreme Court was intended to be an impartial buffer between the executive and legislative branches, beholden only to the Constitution. But I also recognize that it has fallen far short of that ideal, especially in recent decades. The last nominee to garner at least 70 Senate confirmation votes was John Roberts in 2005. Since then, the ultra-conservative Federalist Society has provided Republican presidents with short-lists of far-right judges, and Mitch McConnell’s changing of the filibuster rules (the so-called “nuclear option”) has allowed confirmation of them with simple majorities; no bipartisanship required. Add his stifling of Merrick Garland’s nomination and the process has become irretrievably partisan. The Constitution makes no mention of lifetime appointments and doesn’t specify the size of the Court; it originally had 6 members, and was subsequently amended to 7, 9, 10, 7, and then 9 again. It’s not unconstitutional to change it again.

And yes, just as the E-R mentioned Donald Trump repeatedly in their January 6th editorial, I and others will continue to “keep Trump’s name alive,” because despite his moral shortcomings, non-stop lies, corruption, ineptitude, treasonous activities, and overall failed presidency, he inexplicably and alarmingly continues to be the standard bearer of today’s Republican party.

Oh, and incidentally, Brandon won. Bigly. — Scott Paulo, Chico