This pretty much says it all. Regardless of the specifics, if it ever gets to the point where a majority of the people see the court as compromised, then it will have little further value, and we will have anarchy. We may not agree with the decisions, but we understand that those making them have held themselves beyond the influence of those being heard by the court.

The only reason the court's decisions on the contested 2000 election were accepted, and there wasn't widespread civil unrest, was that the court has maintained an aura of integrity over the centuries.

Unfortunately, in today's polarized political environment, we are unlikely to ever get the same level of great jurists we have enjoyed in the past. Todays nominees will have to pass an ideological litmus test by their nominator and by those confirming them.

oc