I think the saddest thing is that judges are expected to answer how they would rule on specific cases to be confirmed. What is even the point of an independent supreme court, if politicians can have guarantees as to how specific cases are decided?
Someone's going to come along and tell me that the vitriol is necessary and good because the Supreme Court is so clearly and unequivocally evil, but that's just the point. Even the threads on the Israel-Hamas war have had better-quality discussions with more nuance than the hot takes and hatred that have been plaguing HN the last few weeks on these threads.
We can do better. I've seen it.
For the first time in American history a select group of people are immune from the law as long as the acts occur while carrying out their jobs. That’s a big deal. I can see that soon someone will claim immunity because they carried out an order of the President and their immunity extends to those carrying out “official acts” of the President.
That’s the sad part? We have different perceptions reality.
Additionally, supreme court nominees are not selected at random--it's no accident that conservative presidents nominate conservative justices and liberal presidents nominate liberal justices. Nominees are selected by the president because the president thinks they'll like the way the nominee would rule in the future.
Qualified judges have a broad spectrum of opinions. When faced with the question, "should _this_ person have a lifetime supreme court appointment," I don't see how a senator could avoid considering how a nominee might rule in the future.
It does not mean that Congress can't have political qualifications for justices, and in fact George Washington had a failed nomination because his nominee was politically unpopular.