Skip to content
Subscribe

OPINION: Campaign Promises Mean Nothing; Judicial Nominations Should Dominate Discussion

OPINION: Campaign Promises Mean Nothing; Judicial Nominations Should Dominate Discussion
Published:

Voters have watched two more debates from the major parties and countless promises of what would make America great or how the individual candidate would tackle the problems facing America. In the final analysis, none of these promises really matter, as neither side's platform from the executive side could ever make it through such a sharply divided Congress as we have today.

Sure, the Republicans face as tough (possibly tougher) congressional map as the Democrats faced in 2014, but neither side is going to gain the all powerful ability to control Senate cloture.

Only three things really matter for the next four years from the presidency: which judges (or at least type of judges) they will nominate to the federal courts, how they will use the executive order to advance their platform, and which legislation they would emphatically veto.All other issues have just been a dog and pony show, one that is quickly losing its entertainment value.

From the Republican side, the candidates need to focus on the fractures and vote defections within the party that have allowed the current administration to advance significant parts of its agenda, and stop fooling themselves into believing that the executive order is solely to blame.

The Democrats need to fully impress upon their constituents the nominating power of the federal courts, and stop wooing voters with fanciful goodies that would never make it through Congress.

And both sides need to fully accept the fact that modern gridlock is here to stay unless candidates can bend from the polarized party platforms.

But of the three things that matter, the federal court nominations are by far the most important.

It seems that every single major piece of legislation has to work its way through the federal courts to ultimately be decided at the SCOTUS.

Whichever side wins will dominate legislation, via the all powerful final word of the SCOTUS, through the nominating power of the president.

The unpredictable 5-4 nature of the current SCOTUS is fully up for grabs in 2016. With 4 of the 9 justices being born in the 1930s, common sense dictates a significant chance of openings.

So in 2016, how about all the candidates just start focusing on informing the voters of their ideas of modeling the federal courts; at least it would give the voters an honest insight into the legacy of the next presidency.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

OPINION: Campaign Promises Mean Nothing; Judicial Nominations Should Dominate Discussion

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us