Summary
The confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh was characterized by bitter and partisan ramblings that reflected America’s divisive political landscape. The content of the documentary is proof that the Judiciary is a political playfield for the Democratic and the Republican parties as they struggle for control. A grievance between the two parties that dates back to the late 1980s has transformed the Supreme Court into a partisan entity that is politically controlled. This was confirmed by the hurried confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It was done a few days before the 2020 presidential election, against the opposition of many legislators, especially democrats who claimed it was a hypocritical move from Mitch McConnell. These choices have the potential to shape American policy and life for generations.
The FRONTLINE documentary titled “Supreme Revenge: Battle for the Court” chronicles a long battle for the control of the Supreme Court between the Republican and Democratic parties. The producer includes snippets of interviews with legal experts, authors, journalists, and Congressional and White House staffers to reveal the behind-the-scene occurrences. The film commences with a coverage of the failed confirmation hearing of Robert Bork, a President Reagan nominee. The failure that befell the Republican Party gave rise to a 30-year-old grievance that has transformed the Supreme Court into a political and bipartisan entity. Bork’s hearing was led by Sen. Joe Boden, who made sure that he was not confirmed. The democrats were worried that Bork’s extremist views on civil rights and social issues were not right for America. Senator McConnell vowed to retaliate against the Democrats as he felt that Bork’s conservative ideology did not warrant the vicious attacks waged against him. McConnell is at the center of the discussion, as his moves are recounted to reveal how he managed to build a conservative court over the years, one judge at a time.
McConnell’s influence is evident from the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas. Allegations of sexual harassment were brought against him by the Democrats, through Anita Hill. She accused him of discussing pornographic content with her in his office, which made her very uncomfortable. Despite the accusations, Thomas was successfully confirmed. The efforts by Biden, Kennedy, Simpson, and others failed, and he was confirmed. In the final year of Obama’s administration, a vacuum was left on the Supreme Court by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia, but McConnell blocked the appointment by ensuring that a confirmation hearing did not take place. After Trump became president, more conservative judges joined the Supreme Court. The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump was confirmed despite the resistance efforts by the Democrats. McConnell was instrumental in helping Kavanaugh get the confirmation despite the scathing allegations of sexual assault brought against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Brett denied the allegations and used bipartisan arguments to absolve himself, just as Justice Thomas had used race to appeal to the Democrats.
During the Trump’s final days as the president, an opportunity presented itself that would cement Republican’s superiority in the Supreme Court. The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented another chance for the Republicans to increase their representation in the Supreme Court. McConnell pushed for the confirmation of Justice Byron White, even though the presidential elections were days away. The move was criticized as hypocritical because McConnell had opposed Obama’s nominee, by claiming that it was unethical for the president to fill the opening as he was leaving office. When the chance presented itself, Senate Majority Leader did not hesitate to make a move that fulfilled a long-time dream of dominating the Supreme Court through his party’s nominees. During White’s confirmation hearings, the chairman of the senate committee opened the sitting by stating that they had convened to confirm White, raising concerns that the outcome of the event was predetermined. All the Democrats voted no, 52 Republicans voted yes, indicating the bipartisan cracks that characterized the hearings. Justice White was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas, a week before the presidential elections. This was a culmination of McConnell’s efforts to have a Supreme Court that is more conservative than liberal. As Biden takes over as the president of the United Sates, and as the senator wins another 6-term in the Senate, the political future of the US remains hanging.
Reflection
The documentary gives a detailed coverage of how the current composition of the Supreme Court became majorly conservative. It delves into the events that took place in a span of three decades, from the reign of President Ronald Reagan to the reign of President Donald Trump. In between, the governments of Bill Clinton, Gorge W. Bush, and Barack Obama are discussed, and their efforts to gain control of the Judiciary. At a first glance, the documentary might seem like a biography of Senator Mitch McConnell, and the role that he played in securing a conservative court majority. However, it is an abrasive representation of America’s recent history, with regard to the Supreme Court’s nominations. It begins with the failed confirmation of Robert Bork, and ends with the nomination and the controversial confirmation of Justice Byron White. The events explored in the documentary are a demonstration of how the Republican Party grew in influence, and the politicization of key Judiciary nominations and confirmations.
One of the film’s strengths is the chronological order of the key events that led to the creation of a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. The nominations and confirmations that were conducted under different governments are covered in detail and the political struggles that occurred between politicians. The producer introduces the viewer to the source of the power struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats. This makes the documentary exciting to watch because of the opportunity to connect each event to its title. The confirmation of hearing of Bork is presented in a manner that introduces the viewer to McConnell’s vow to seek revenge. The why, how, and who of the retaliation mission are explored in detail. Each of the hearings is connected to the development of McConnell, from a Senate freshman to a majority leader, and the main figure in attaining the objectives of the Republican Party.
The documentary is highly biased because it focuses primarily on Senator McConnell’s role. Instead of the title “Supreme Revenge,” the film could have been renamed “The McConnell Revenge.” Nothing is reported about the influence of the Federalist Society, a powerful organization that has influenced the nomination of judges. The film presents McConnell as a powerful lone ranger whose main goal is to fulfill a long-time dream of having a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. However, it is clear that he was receiving support from powerful individuals and organizations that are not talked about in the documentary. For instance, the producer does not explain in detail how the senator was able to block president Obama’s nominee from having a confirmation hearing. He cites a single case of intimidation on a republican senator who felt that a hearing should be considered. The denial was an unprecedented maneuver of political aggressiveness that must have been difficult to achieve. It is a known fact that after Bork’s failed confirmation, every nominee to the Supreme Court by a Republican president has been a member of the Federalist Society.
The main focus of the film is the process that led to the creation of a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. For decades, the courts were political entities, but never were they bipartisan. The documentary could have explored this further because of its political implications. The viewer is left with many questions that could have been answered had the producer of the film pursued certain issues in a deeper manner. How does a bipartisan Supreme Court affect the justice system of the United States? What are the political implications of the struggle for representation in the Supreme Court between the liberals and conservatives? The documentary is detailed, and chronologically shows how the Republican Party managed to convert the court into their liking. However, it seems incomplete because of the exclusion of important details: the consequences of having a bipartisan court. Moreover, it seems that the producer sides with the Republican narrative that the Democrats are to blame for the political disagreements seen during all nominations and confirmation hearings.