First off, from a technical standpoint I have a small problem with this article: it doesn't seem to actually support your conclusion. You never exactly say why Congress shouldn't influence the ideological makeup of the court, except for in your conclusion. And then, it's not strongly supported. You say that allowing an ideological confirmation would make Congress have too much influence, but fail to comment on the fact that by not looking toward ideology you may allow the executive branch to have too much power.
Also you list 3 ideological criteria that supposedly should restrict Justices from being nominated and confirmed, each of which at one time or another has been supported by the Supreme Court (or in the case of private property protection, a lesser Court of Appeals).
As to the conclusion, I don't think there's a definitive answer. Ignoring ideology entirely turns a blind eye to the reality that personal ideology can and does influence judicial rulings. However, I tend to agree with you not so much to lessen the influence of Congress, but more because I tend toward strict constructionism of the Constitution. And I think it is much easier for a justice who is a strict constructionist to ignore any personal ideological bias, simply because there tends to be less ambiguity.
edit:hmm, there was an article here...
|