Supreme Court Litmus Tests “Erodes Foundations” Of Judiciary

Hillary Clinton’s admission during the second presidential debate that she would have a litmus test for appointing Supreme Court justices – in fact, “I have a bunch of litmus tests,” she said – is part of a troublesome trend, writes the Washington Post editorial board. “Every step closer to accepting ideological litmus tests developed in the heat of political campaigns as the basis for judicial selections – every step toward putting court rulings to a vote – erodes the foundations of the judicial branch,” the Post wrote. Those foundations are: “That judges will come to every case with fairness, that they will be modest in their application of the law, that they are not legislators, that the facts of particular cases, not pre-announced ideological commitments, will guide them.” The editorial board admits that judicial elections are “a flaw, not a feature, of the country’s judicial system,” and that Clinton’s Republican opponent for president, Donald Trump, “has been worse,” by releasing a list of people he would appoint to the bench, “essentially making them part of the campaign.” But, they argue, “that does not change the fact that Ms. Clinton should know better.”