From the file. Written for the paper dated November 1972. Opened in the public stacks July 14, 2026.
As the nation grapples with a critical vacancy in the judiciary, it is essential to reflect on the bipartisan habit of selective memory that has plagued our political discourse.
The Supreme Court and Its Role
The recent vacancy on the Supreme Court has ignited fierce debates across party lines, yet it is remarkable how quickly both sides forget their own past actions. The appointment of justices has long been a contentious issue, serving as a battleground for ideological clashes. Democrats and Republicans alike have resorted to a convenient amnesia regarding their previously held stances on judicial appointments, often depending on the political climate that surrounds them.
Since the days of the New Deal, the Court has been a pivotal arbiter in the struggle between progressive and conservative ideologies. The way in which each party approaches judicial nominations often reflects a profound misunderstanding of the Court's role in American democracy. While the left clamors for progressive judges who will uphold civil rights and liberties, the right yearns for strict constructionists who will rein in what they perceive as judicial overreach. But in this tug-of-war, both sides are guilty of a selective memory that obscures the broader implications of their actions.
Selective Memory on Display
Take, for instance, the recent nomination process for the late Justice William O. Douglas. At the time of his appointment, he was viewed as a progressive lion of the Court. Yet, how quickly some Democrats have forgotten their eagerness to support his controversial positions when they find themselves on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum today. Similarly, Republicans, who now advocate for strict adherence to the Constitution, often overlook their own earlier support for justices whose interpretations favored executive power during the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
"Both parties have become embroiled in a game of hypocrisy, where the rules change based on who is in the White House."
This hypocrisy is particularly evident when examining the tactics employed during the confirmation processes. The 1968 battle over President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas illustrates how both sides can manipulate circumstances to suit their political ambitions. With a Democratic president in office, Republicans mounted a fierce opposition to Fortas, a move that paved the way for more conservative appointments once Richard Nixon took office. Today, with a Republican president, Democrats seem to have adopted similar obstructionist tactics, citing the need for more deliberation and consensus.
The Consequences of Partisanship
This endless cycle of partisanship and selective memory has dire consequences for the judiciary. The public increasingly views the Court as an extension of the political branches rather than an independent arbiter of justice. When justices are nominated based on their perceived political loyalty rather than their qualifications or judicial philosophy, it undermines the integrity of the institution itself.
Moreover, this partisanship feeds into a broader narrative that diminishes public trust in the judicial system. People begin to see the Court as a political entity rather than a neutral body dedicated to upholding the Constitution. The danger here is twofold: not only does it erode the legitimacy of the Court, but it also discourages qualified candidates from accepting nominations, fearing the intense scrutiny and politicization that now accompany the process.
Looking Ahead
As we move forward in addressing the current vacancy, it is crucial for both parties to acknowledge their own histories and the consequences of their actions. A commitment to a fair and transparent process, devoid of the current partisan theatrics, is essential for restoring faith in the judiciary. This requires a willingness to break the cycle of selective memory and recognize that the appointment of justices is not merely a political maneuver, but a responsibility that carries profound implications for the future of our democracy.
✦ ✦ ✦