I am watching a Frontline PBS documentary called Supreme Revenge. One point that is repeated is that getting your justice of choice to get confirmed is getting to wield generational power.
I am surprised that given the enormity of the title and the power it holds, there isn't enough dirty play going on. Why haven't the democrats ever tried to off a judge when the times were on their side to tip the scales of the SCOTUS in favour of progressives? Why haven't republicans?
I am not advocating that killing people you disagree with be the norm, but I'm surprised that presidents are somehow more polarizing in that people seem to be more motivated to kill them.
What stops people to stoop to savagery when it comes to supreme court justices?
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!