The politicisation of judicial appointments in the US is putting at risk the whole system of government in that country, according to a leading US journalist.
He fears that its present system of checks and balances is in danger of unravelling. The Pulitzer Prize winner, David Broder, is political correspondent of the Washington Post, and was in Dublin last night to give the annual RTÉ/UCD lecture on Broadcasting, Society and the Law.
"Our system of government is different from pure democracy," he told The Irish Times. "It was not the intention to make public opinion the supreme arbiter of every issue. That is why there is an intricate system of checks and balances, including an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary is a terribly important guarantee of individual freedom and the stability of government."
Because President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court are now threatened with opposition from Democrats at the Senate hearings, the present administration is considering the "nuclear option" of changing the rules to allow a 51 per cent majority to ratify judicial appointments, rather than the present 60 per cent. This would alter the nature of the Senate, turning it into a second chamber with simple majority rules, he said.
"What is lacking is the kind of leadership that would say, 'There is wrong on both sides, there is something at stake here - the genius which kept the judiciary and executive independent. Back off.'"