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

image
Published: 19 Jan, 2016
2 min read

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.

IVP Donate

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.

You Might Also Like

Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
The latest Independent Voter Podcast episode takes listeners through the messy intersections of politics, reform, and public perception. Chad and Cara open with the irony of partisan outrage over trivial issues like a White House ballroom while overlooking the deeper dysfunctions in our democracy. From California to Maine, they unpack how the very words on a ballot can tilt entire elections and how both major parties manipulate language and process to maintain power....
30 Oct, 2025
-
1 min read
California Prop 50 gets an F
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an 'F'
The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation....
30 Oct, 2025
-
3 min read
bucking party on gerrymandering
5 Politicians Bucking Their Party on Gerrymandering
Across the country, both parties are weighing whether to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Utah, Indiana, Colorado, Illinois, and Virginia are all in various stages of the action. Here are five politicians who have declined to support redistricting efforts promoted by their own parties....
31 Oct, 2025
-
4 min read