The way in which judges are brought to the bench in America and subsequently to SCOTUS is political. While it isn't Congress it isn't as independent as many people previously portrayed it.
I wonder if there’s a change within living memory that has caused that cough Bork cough
Snark aside, there’s a reasonable case to be made that Congress has been increasingly treating the judiciary as a super-legislature. Far easier to avoid the work of compromise etc. when you can punt it to the USSC. Whether that’s pure laziness or something structural based on a reduction of overall party power is up for discussion.
As far as I can tell, the nonsense with Court appointments began back in the 80s, with the campaign against Reagan's nominee Robert Bork. Since then there's been a gradually ramping escalation of hostility from both sides. The GOP had to pay back the DEMs for the Bork thing, the DEMs try to smear Thomas, vetting of nominees is held up, then entirely withheld until the President leaves office, and so forth.
The politicization of the Court is a completely bipartisan affair going back 4 decades at least.
We might even say it goes back 8 decades, to FDR's threats to pack the court (see "a switch in time saves nine").
It’s not as if Bork was first. Haynsworth and Carswell were rejected by democrats for political reasons (leading to Blackmun being confirmed). Abe Fortas was rejected as Chief Justice by republicans.
Bork’s appointment problems stem from Reagan’s essentially rewarding him for obstructing impeachment of Nixon.
I’ve never understood why the Democrats are painted as the bad guys interfering in a non-partisan appointment of Bork. Nominating Bork was an insane act.
