Episode 2: If congress did its job, the Supreme Court would matter a whole lot less
Free to Offend Episode 2
After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it seems that partisan political bickering has been cranked up to eleven—which is actually saying something, given that we weren’t humming along in relative harmony previously.
After the Kavanaugh hearings, America should prepare itself for more ugly and deeply partisan grandstanding as the Senate moves toward confirming President Donald Trump’s nominee for RBG’s empty seat on the Supreme Court.
But why, exactly have appointments to the high court become one of the most explosive features of our system of government?
Nevada Policy Communication Director Michael Schaus speaks with Cato’s Director of Constitutional Studies Ilya Shapiro about how—and when—the process of confirming new judges became such an ugly partisan process. Ilya’s new book, Supreme Disorder, takes readers inside the unknown history of controversial judicial nominations and explores reform proposals that could return sobriety to the nomination process.
Schaus also discusses the over-politicization of virtually everything in our lives—a consequence of lawmakers trying to fix every social problem under the sun while, simultaneously, delegating more and more controversial policy decisions to both the executive and judicial branches on a regular basis.
In that context, it’s no wonder each political tribe so fiercely fights to have “their guy” sitting on the nation’s highest court.
Free to Offend can also be heard on Amazon and iTunes.
- The New Intolerant America
- Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court
Free to Offend:
A podcast that radically defends free speech by regularly practicing it.
Produced by Nevada Policy Research Institute,
featuring Nevada Policy’s Michael Schaus and Robert Fellner.