At Fox News: Why is the Kavanaugh Supreme Court fight so vicious? Because government is too important

Sep 30, 2018 | Featured

Dr. John Lott has a new piece at Fox News on why Americans have these vicious confirmation battles. The piece starts this way:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is right that Senate’s confirmation process is “a national disgrace.” The damage done to Kavanaugh’s family is horrific. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was clear: “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020.”

The threats and vicious messages that his family and Christine Blasey Ford have received are a national embarrassment.

Hopefully, everyone other than the most partisan Americans want to fix this and stop it from ever happening again. But the question is how? What went wrong?

The problem has been getting worse for a long time. The solution, though, is very simple – but it isn’t what most liberals will want to hear.

Government has too much of a stake in too many peoples’ lives these days. And it is the very drive by liberals to champion big government and its involvement in every aspect of American life that has made the question of who sits on the Court so crucial.

Reduce the role of government, and we reduce the vitriol over Supreme Court nominations. It is that simple.

This is because when so much is at stake, the fiercer the fight will be over everything from who is on the Supreme Court to who wins elections.

From the first Supreme Court nomination in 1789 until 1825, the average confirmation time from nomination to Senate vote took just over two days. From 1826 to 1950, the next 68 confirmations averaged 14 days.

But this changed dramatically over the next half century. From 1951 through 1976, the average confirmation process increased to more than 50 days, and from 1976 to the present, it has averaged at least 75 days. (The average rises to 90 days if one counts the time for Merrick Garland between his nomination and when it lapsed after the new Congress was seated in 2017 – though an argument could be made that his nomination was actually decided very quickly.)

As of now, Kavanaugh’s nomination has so far taken 81 days.

The Democrats hit the nuclear option in 2013 that scrapped the filibuster for District and Circuit court judges. Republicans then did the same last year for Supreme Court nominees. That shorted confirmations under Obama and Trump, but, as we have seen with Kavanaugh, the desire to stop nominees hasn’t gone away. Opponents have just switched to more malignant forms of accomplishing their goal.

There is more anger over nominees now than there was 50 or 100 or 200 years ago because more is at stake. Government has grown by leaps and bounds, and the decisions that are being made have far-reaching consequences for our checkbooks and personal freedoms.

The Supreme Court — and the federal courts generally — are more deeply involved in our lives than they were 50 years ago. The dramatic expansion of the judiciary’s role can be seen by the increase in federal cases. Since the 1960s, the number of circuit court cases has increased from 21 per million Americans to 223 per million. District court cases have grown over the same period from 448 to 1,252 per million Americans. . . .

The rest of the piece is available here.

johnrlott

0 Comments

Categories

Archives

Major Decision: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines bans. With Commentary. Copy of decision is available here. NJ Governor Responds to Decision.

Major Decision: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines bans. With Commentary. Copy of decision is available here. NJ Governor Responds to Decision.

As expected, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in an en banc decision, has struck down New Jersey's prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines. It is a major decision because he creates a circuit court split for the first time. The...

While Americans strongly support deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes, they are divided on “sanctuary” states that restrict state and local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, though more believe “sanctuary” policies jeopardize public safety.

While Americans strongly support deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes, they are divided on “sanctuary” states that restrict state and local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, though more believe “sanctuary” policies jeopardize public safety.

Voters appear to hold someone inconsistent positions on deporting illegal aliens and sanctuary policies. While voters are equally divided on "sanctuary" states stopping state and local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, by a ten...