A Bench for the Bench
Sample
This isn’t about whether any particular justice deserved their seat, or whether past confirmations were “fair.” It’s about whether the machinery is still fit for purpose in a political environment that looks very different from the one for which it was designed. But, here’s a more direct question I have asked numerous times in the past: if we were designing this system today, knowing what we now know, would we build it this way?
Problem Statement: Where the System Breaks
At a high level, the Supreme Court succession process seems straightforward. A vacancy occurs. The President nominates a candidate. The Senate provides “advice and consent” via confirmation hearings. A justice is seated. System, input, procedures, users, and outcomes all wrapped up in a single paragraph. Clean, compact, and tidy. Rinse and repeat whenever there’s a vacancy.
The problem is that this description only works in a world where timing is neutral, motivations are aligned, and political actors behave as if their goal is institutional sovereignty rather than partisan advantage. That world no longer exists—if it ever really did. And these days, it’s not even a problem isolated to a single ideology. It’s a problem with whoever is holding the deck when the deal begins.