As a student and armchair defender of democracy, I find the concept of three branches of government with checks and balances fascinating.
Then again, there was a simple logic I tried to understand in recent days after hearing news that an African American woman would be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in the history of the U.S.
The nomination would be a fulfillment of the pledge made before the current President was elected democratically. In that sense, he is a legitimate delegate of the majority of the voters. It can be argued that that pledge is not the only factor that gave him the wide margin of votes over his opponent for the same open position. At the same time, it can not also be argued that that pledge is not a contributing factor in giving him the wide margin of votes over his opponent.
So, if the pledge is a contributing factor, can it not be a direct expression of the voters in a democratic process to have an African American woman for the would be open post at the U.S. Supreme Court?
Both candidates for the would be open post for the President of the United States could have expressed their discretions on the issue when they were campaigning for the position. The art of campaigning in a democratic process may be different from the art of the deal in business ventures.
Some Senators have expressed opposition to fulfilling the campaign pledge stating that it is discriminatory and insulting. These include Senator Ted Cruz of Texas who hadn't impressed many people as having sensory organs for insults when a once campaign rival for the same post insulted his wife. That was before he became a stooge of the same person who publicly insulted his wife.
Discrimination based on gender or race, among others, is against the law in the U.S. However, can campaign pledges that have the potential to become a direct channel for popular expression be defined as discriminatory after the potential becomes a reality? Or does it become a mere discretion of the popular expression?
I have no training or expertise in law. I am simply trying to understand the logic here. Then again, trying to understand the logic brings up even a bigger question. If the three branches of U.S. government are equal and independent branches, why is it that direct delegations are made by the voters to two of the branches and delegations to the third branch is not done likewise. The President and the members of Congress are directly elected by voters. However, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are not. Does this unique difference in the process of delegation by the voters to all the three branches make their independence of these branches invalid in logical terms?
May be Ted Cruz, as a Harvard Law school student, can explain the above two simple logics, if he is also a student of logic.