... but I don't think we should panic and throw out a system that's worked well for a couple centuries because we've had one insanely bad confirmation fight. ...
How about if we've had over a dozen bad confirmation fights in the last 105 years?
Somebody on some internet site several years ago asked how many times have their been very controversial nominations for the Supreme Court in the last 100 years or so. I responded with this list:
Mahlon Pitney, nominated by Taft in 1912, was opposed by many liberals because of a perception he would be consistently hostile to the rights of laborers.
Louis Brandeis, nominated by Wilson in 1916, was opposed by many conservatives because of a perception he was too liberal.
John J. Parker, nominated by Hoover in 1930, was defeated for confirmation in the Senate because of a perception he was racist and anti-labor.
Abe Fortas, nominated for Chief Justice by Johnson in 1968; confirmation in the Senate was stalled by conservatives, until eventually Fortas withdrew his name for consideration.
Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell, nominated by Nixon in 1969 and 1970 respectively, both defeated for confirmation by the Senate because of a perception they were racist, too conservative, and were in general "mediocre" in their qualifications.
William Rehnquist, nominated in 1971 by Nixon, opposed by many liberals because of a perception he was too conservative and possibly racist.
William Rehnquist again, nominated for Chief Justice in 1986 by Reagan, opposed by many liberals because of the same perceptions.
Robert Bork, nominated in 1987 by Reagan, defeated for confirmation in the Senate because of a perception that he was too conservative.
Clarence Thomas, nominated in 1991 by Bush41, opposed by many liberals because of a perception he was too conservative and was generally under-qualified.
Harriet Miers, nominated in 2005 by Bush43, nomination withdrawn after conservatives were vociferous about being opposed to her.
Then all four of the last nominations (not counting Gorsuch): Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Garland.
Well sure, no nominee is entitled to smooth sailing through the confirmation process, and no president is entitled to the confirmation of their first choice pick. The occasional partisan fight over a SCOTUS vacancy is inevitable. But those spats have always occurred at unpredictable intervals. I just can't see any way that judicial term limits wouldn't lead to
more politicization of the confirmation process. Whatever SCOTUS seat was up after the next presidential election would become a campaign issue
ever single election. I just can't help but think that that wouldn't do any favors for the legitimacy of the court. (Not to mention the perverse incentives if justices had to "campaign" for reappointment by the president).
