[Skybird]

Amy Coney Barrett's partisan nomination subverts the very intent of the Supreme Court

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...me-ncna1244146

Hamilton — though he did believe that the Supreme Court should be able to rule on the constitutionality of federal law — thought the court would be the least powerful branch of government because it could not disturb the established political rights of all Americans.Given the powers it has accrued since Hamilton's day, no one could say this about a Supreme Court that has been stacked with political partisans. And, indeed, the main substantive arguments both for and against federal appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation focus on the extent to which her potential rulings would affect such "political rights" as Americans' access to the Affordable Care Act and the extent (or even existence) of their right to privacy.
(...)
None of this is an argument against Barrett as a judge or a justice; it is an argument against the deep partisanship in the process of confirming justices to the Supreme Court — which is disregarding the intent of the authors of our Constitution and the founders of our nation. After what happened in 2016 — and will likely happen again quite soon — no American can be faulted for seeing the Supreme Court as an explicitly partisan body, incapable of calling the "balls and strikes" as "impartial umpires," as Chief Justice John Roberts articulated at his own confirmation hearings.
Roberts has long admired Alexander Hamilton. But the view (which he shares with Hamilton) of a nonpartisan Supreme Court, if not already dead, will suffer another body blow with Barrett's confirmation.