Problem:
Brandon Wong
Reply from Brandon Wong
The 1987 defeat of Robert Bork was a turning point in politicizing the process of confirming U.S. Supreme Court justices. As Supreme Revenge relates, the nomination of Bork represented ideological litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees. His defeat, triggered by his originality approach and inflammatory writing, set both sides on the path to regarding future nominations as war zones for dominance in the law and culture over the long run. This fight transformed affirmations into highly politicized fights out of judgments of legal capacity. The enduring impact has been more political polarization, with both sides attempting to assume ideological control of the Court.
The movie demonstrates the intensifying polarization of the confirmation process cause as well as effect of political polarization in America. It is symptomatic in that it is an expression of the hyper-partisan environment that has developed over the past two decades, especially in terms of constitutional and cultural issues. But the process itself is increasingly becoming a cause of polarization by institutionalizing distrust and disciplining burn-the-barn-down behavior. Each and every confirmation fight appears to intensify the cycle of retribution, thereby adding to the general breakdown of political norms.
The politicization of Supreme Court appointments is a grave concern for public opinion about the legitimacy and impartiality of the Court. The more political the Court is, the more it confirms in people's minds that the Court is not a neutral arbiter of justice, but an arm of the dominant party. This mindset undermines trust in the judiciary as a protector of citizens' rights, a role examined in Section 13.1. In the event that the public perceives the Court to be biased, then its rulings-however legally correct-will be met with doubt, and the rule of law and trust in constitutional guarantees will suffer.
Reply to post from Brandon Wong with engaging 3 sentences. Need Assignment Help?