North American Observation丨Simultaneously on the election: the candidate for the judge has been determined, and the "seating war" between the two parties in the United States is becoming more and more intense
According to the "New York Times" morning news on September 26, Beijing time, President Trump has decided to nominate Amy Connie Barrett as the candidate to fill the vacant seat after the death of Justice Ginsberg.
If nothing happens, Trump will officially announce the nomination at the White House in the early morning of September 27, Beijing time.
On September 25, Beijing time, the Democrats of the U.S. House of Representatives just announced that they will introduce a bill called "Supreme Court Term Limitation and Periodic Appointment" next week, which aims to abolish the lifetime tenure of judges of the U.S. Supreme Court and restrict their presence. The number of judges appointed during the presidency.
The media pointed out that recently, US Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg died of illness before the election, and the two parties have a huge difference on the timing of the appointment of the next justice.
The choices made by voters and even the possible election judgments are closely related to the appointment of justices.
Therefore, every move of the two parties at the moment will have a major impact on the general election and even the future of the United States.
Abolish the lifetime tenure and limit the number of presidential nominations
Reuters pointed out that the Democratic Party will submit a new bill next week on September 29. The bill will propose to change the tenure of judges of the U.S. Supreme Court from the current lifetime to 18 years, and limit each president to only a four-year term. Two judges are appointed.
Justice Ginsberg passed away on the evening of September 18, and Trump demanded that the vacancy be filled as soon as possible the next day.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell also spoke out for the first time, emphasizing that the Senate should make a decision as soon as possible to fill the vacant seats in the Supreme Court, and called on Republicans to vote in favor of the decision.
Subsequently, Romney, a Republican who has always opposed Trump, also reversed his position and expressed support for Trump's nomination of a Supreme Court judge.
Although the Democrats were opposed to it, they appeared weak, and until September 24, a new bill was introduced to limit the term of office of justices and the number of times the incumbent president nominates justices.
The report pointed out that Trump has nominated twice to the Supreme Court during his presidency.
If the bill passes, Trump will not be able to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court again.
The high law power is huge, involving the US election
After Ginsberg's death, the Republican Party reacted quickly. Not only did it draw up the candidate list for the next justice, but it also explicitly requested that the appointment be made before the general election.
According to informed sources, Trump’s aides have been drawing up plans for this for several months and have reduced the list of candidates in advance so that the Supreme Court can act quickly and put forward a list of candidates when vacancies occur.
In this regard, the Democratic Party has always expressed opposition and pointed out that the next president of the United States should be formally nominated.
Public opinion pointed out that although the court should act in accordance with the law and does not involve politics, due to the many powers granted to it by the Constitution, it is inevitable that it will be involved in political affairs in practice, and can even rule on the results of the US presidential election.
The media pointed out that the 2020 general election is quite turbulent, and the large area of mailed votes across the country is likely to make the election result more confusing. Therefore, the position of the next justice is even more important, because once the two parties dispute the election result, The Supreme Court needs to make a ruling.
As early as 2000, the result of the US presidential election was determined by the Supreme Court.
This is why Trump has been pushing for the nomination of justices strongly and is eager to complete the replacement of justices before the election.
Judicial supremacy is no wonder, judges choose decades of strategy
The New York Times pointed out that lifelong judges have the supreme power to solve the most difficult problems in society.
In the United States today, people have become accustomed to this.
But "in any other place, this is abnormal."
The analysis pointed out that in most other democratic countries in the world, the Supreme Court often does not make “radical practices” such as “total denial of the entire legal provision” like the US courts did. However, in the past two decades, the US high law has interfered. Elections, legal same-sex marriages, and the enactment of a number of related laws have all proved the so-called "judicial supremacy."
Such judicial supremacy has often been criticized by American conservatives in the past, but now liberals have also begun to be vigilant: because the Republican Party will use the justices for life this time, through the justices to determine the United States' laws and strategies for decades in the future. , Including climate change, voting rights, economic development, etc., which is likely to make the United States enter conservatism for a long time.
The politicization of the courts means a 200-year regression, and constitutional power may need to be redistributed
The Washington Post believes that the tendency of the U.S. Supreme Court to be partisan is becoming more and more obvious. If it is openly politicized, it will be a 200-year retrogression of justice.
"It will be restored to the way it used to operate for more than 100 years. In the nineteenth century, the partisanization of the American people was deeply ingrained, and the people knew that the Supreme Court was the same."
Commentators believe that in the 19th century, the primary consideration for the appointment of Supreme Court justices by the US president was not judicial ability, but loyalty to the party. The main reason for the appointment of justices was their previous records of allegiance. Most nominees had Served in federal, state or local administration.
"Washington Post" pointed out that in today's highly polarized United States, the public may eventually reluctantly accept the fact that courts have become increasingly politicized.
But they may ask Congress to re-examine the powers of the courts and ask Congress to redistribute the powers of different functional agencies under the Constitution.
The New York Times commented that the American political norms of the mid-20th century are no longer applicable, and the separation of powers system has been reduced to a weird mixture of administration and justice, and the power of Congress has been greatly weakened.
"Obviously, the American political norms of the mid-20th century are no longer applicable. Our system of separation of powers has gradually reduced to a weird mixture of administrative and judicial powers." The New York Times pointed out that among these three powers, the power of Congress has already Was greatly weakened, only wandering around the system to approve budgets and judicial nominations, "These problems do not reflect excessive political battles, on the contrary, they just show the lack of battles."