Malcolm Rivera
In 2020, Mitch McConnell was accused of fabricating history to justify a Supreme Court vote. This was not the first time he had been accused of manipulating the federal judiciary. In 2019, McConnell was credited with holding open vacancies in the Supreme Court, which were then filled by Trump with conservative federal judges. McConnell's bid to reshape the federal judiciary extended beyond the Supreme Court, as he was also accused of blocking immigration enforcement and protecting the filibuster. McConnell v. FEC in 2003 also brought about a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision | December 10, 2003 |
| Case Name | McConnell v. Federal Election Commission |
| Citation | 540 U.S. 93 |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
| Judge | Chief Justice |
| Area of Law | Campaign Finance Regulation |
| Parties | McConnell, United States Senator, et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al. |
| Issues | Constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) |
| Holdings | Upheld BCRA's control of soft money and regulation of electioneering communications; found BCRA's ban on contributions from minors and "choice provision" to be unconstitutional |
| Other | Addressed challenges to specific sections of BCRA, including §§214(b), 214(c), 305, 307, and the millionaire provisions |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's independence
The independence of the Supreme Court is a cornerstone of the American justice system. The public's belief in the Court's independence from political influence is essential to its effectiveness. However, in recent years, the Court has been accused of political bias, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell accused of manipulating the confirmation process to cement a conservative majority on the Court.
McConnell has been accused of using historical precedent as a "fig leaf" to justify his decisions regarding Supreme Court nominations. For example, in 2016, McConnell blocked a vote on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Court, citing the "long-standing tradition" of not fulfilling a nomination during an election year. However, this precedent has been disputed, and critics argue that McConnell's decision was motivated by political calculations.
McConnell has also been credited with holding open vacancies on the Court during the Obama administration, which were then filled by President Trump with conservative judges. This strategy, which McConnell himself has taken credit for, has been described as a shrewd tactic to reshape the Court and the federal judiciary.
The public's perception of the Court as a political body can have significant consequences. Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general, warned that if the public believes the Court is "easily manipulated by politicians," it would "hugely diminish the courts and their ability to perform their function under the Constitution." This highlights the importance of maintaining the Court's independence and impartiality in the eyes of the public.
Despite the accusations of political influence, the Court has shown independence in some of its rulings. For example, in the 2003 case of McConnell v. FEC, the Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's control of soft money and regulation of electioneering communications. It found the ban on contributions from minors and the "choice provision" to be unconstitutional, demonstrating its willingness to rule against provisions it deems unconstitutional, regardless of political implications.
The President's Cabinet: Congressional Approval Needed?
You may want to see also
Historical precedent
Furthermore, McConnell has been accused of reshaping the federal judiciary by holding open vacancies that Trump filled with conservative federal judges. This included blocking Supreme Court nominees when the opposite party controlled the Senate, which Romney justified by citing "the Constitution and precedent". However, all five election-year vacancies from the 1890s to the 1950s were during unified government, and the two more recent divided-government vacancies were filled.
McConnell has also been credited with protecting the filibuster, a Senate tradition, which many Democrats and a growing number of Republicans, including Trump, oppose.
Overall, while historical precedent has been used to justify certain actions, these precedents are often fabricated or misrepresented, and the actual historical context is quite different.
The Confederate Constitution: Slavery's Legal Foundation
You may want to see also
Judicial appointments
The topic of judicial appointments has been a highly contested issue in American politics, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell playing a significant role in shaping the federal judiciary. McConnell has been credited with helping to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and transform the lower federal courts by holding open vacancies that were then filled by former President Trump with conservative federal judges.
In the lead-up to the 2020 election, McConnell defended the decision to vote on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's successor, despite refusing to vote on President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016. McConnell argued that it was following a "long-standing tradition" of not fulfilling a nomination during an election year. However, this has been refuted, with critics pointing out that there is no such tradition and that McConnell fabricated history to justify his actions.
McConnell's strategy has had a significant impact on the federal judiciary. By holding open vacancies during the Obama administration, he created a pipeline of conservative judges who could be quickly appointed by Trump. This not only shaped the makeup of the lower courts but also ensured a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades to come.
The impact of McConnell's actions extends beyond the appointment of judges. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, hold the power to shape American policies in a lasting way. The effectiveness of the judiciary depends on the public's belief in their independence from party politics. However, the perception of the judiciary as a political body could diminish their authority and ability to function effectively under the Constitution.
In conclusion, McConnell's actions regarding judicial appointments have had far-reaching consequences. They have contributed to the politicization of the judiciary and raised questions about the independence and effectiveness of the judicial system in the eyes of the public. The resolution of these controversies is essential to maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and its ability to govern alongside the executive and legislative branches.
Swalwell's Take on "Woman" in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Public perception of the judiciary
Research has shown that public trust in the judiciary is generally low, with some surveys indicating that it hovers around 70%. This lack of trust may be due in part to misunderstandings about the role and functions of the judiciary, as well as the limitations of its jurisdiction. The media also plays a significant role in shaping public perception, and enhanced communication between the judiciary and the media can help improve public understanding and trust.
Additionally, the diversity of the judiciary is an important factor in public trust. There is a growing recognition that majority white male leadership in the courts may hinder the ability to create systems that address the biases routinely experienced by BIPOC individuals in the justice system. Increasing diversity on the bench and improving judicial decision-makers' understanding of the lived experiences of those they serve can help enhance public trust.
The effectiveness of the judiciary also depends on the public's belief in their independence from party politics. High-profile Supreme Court rulings and controversies have affected public perception, and there have been calls for the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code to enhance transparency and accountability.
It is worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court is intentionally insulated from public opinion to protect certain rights, such as minority rights, from the whims of public sentiment. However, understanding how the Supreme Court reflects public thinking is still important for citizens. Research has shown that public opinion can be highly predictive of how the court rules, indicating a close relationship between public sentiment and judicial decisions.
Constitution and Colonists: Did It Achieve Their Ideals?
You may want to see also
The filibuster
In the case of McConnell v. FEC, the filibuster was employed by Senate Republicans to block the confirmation of President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, to the Supreme Court in 2016. This was justified on the basis of an alleged historical norm that the Senate does not confirm Supreme Court nominees during an election year. However, this norm has been disputed, and the move was criticised as an attempt to reshape the federal judiciary by cementing a conservative majority on the Court.
Workplace Harassment: Abusive Conduct and the Law
You may want to see also
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UL320_.jpg)
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
