Nina Jankowicz (Joe Biden, D-DE) Historic Senate Judiciary Hillsborough High School Robert Bork Confirmation Hearings The nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is a power that presidents enjoy exercising; it allows them to recommend worthy individuals who deserve national acclaim and power, and, if the nominee is confirmed, it often brings about advantageous press. As of late, however, the nomination of justices to the Supreme Court has become an increasingly political affair. Presidents have realized the benefits of nominating a candidate who will carry out their national policy long after their term is finished, as Justices hold a life long term. When politics become a consideration, confirming a nominee is increasingly difficult, as the Senate must consider the “balance” of the court- how many conservative and liberal justices are currently on the benchand how it will be affected by the new nominee. Current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg warns against political appointments, saying, “A president should never select, nor should the Senate confirm, a candidate based on his or her political views. A candidate should be chosen,” she advises, “on the basis of his or her wisdom and qualifications.” Despite this warning, politics continue to tip the tenuous balance of the Supreme Court. Though the opinion of the general public and many conservatives is that a Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed solely on the basis that the President feels he or she is a worthy appointee, many senators tend to feel differently. Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate…shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.” The framers intended this clause to speed up the confirmation process, avoiding endless debates in the Senate, as well as to provide a check on the President’s power. Thus, the Senate has traditionally sought answers to three questions when
considering a nominee during hearings: first, the body considers whether or not the nominee has the intellectual capacity, competence, and temperament to be a Supreme Court Justice; secondly, it attempts to discern if the nominee is of good moral character and free of conflicts of interest; and thirdly, it asks whether the nominee will faithfully uphold the Constitution of the United States. However, these questions assume that there is a good deal of bipartisanship between the executive and legislative branches, and that the President will make an honest effort to choose nominees from the mainstream of American legal thought who demonstrate two very important qualities: detachment and statesmanship. Even when these qualities are present in a nominee, and especially when they are not, politics are extremely important. The Senate most guard against the President remaking the Court in his own image, and whether or not he has attempted to do so can only be discerned through substantive queries. When the Senate holds Robert Bork, the current appointee, up to all the standards mentioned above, he falls short in many categories. Bork is a strict constructionist, believing that the right to privacy, civil rights, and free speech are not enumerated in the Constitution. Moreover, he has expressed that he does not feel the Ninth amendment is crucial to the Constitution, when, in reality, it protects all the rights not specifically enumerated in the document, and protects the public from what might otherwise become a totalitarian society. Bork also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, leaving the public wondering if he will allow his racist streak to shine in his Court decisions, even though he should be abandoning his personal opinions at the bench. If Bork were replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist or Justice Scalia, there would be no question that he is well-suited for the position. However, he is replacing Justice Powell, who was a crucial swing vote on the Court. It is clear that President Reagan is attempting to pull the Court to the right, and it is the Senate’s job to prevent this.