Yet somehow we also managed to appoint SC judges without the senate stalling nominations to prevent the president from being able to appoint them.

Let's not pretend that the current situation represents anything like "normal", and further, that we don't all recognize that bad-faith actions by the Republican party are responsible.

> Yet somehow we also managed to appoint SC judges without the senate stalling nominations to prevent the president from being able to appoint them.

Yeah, that's because change happened.

Pretending that something can't be done because it worked for hundreds of years and then something bad happened isn't actually very correct.

That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016.

The court has been an illegitimate and partisan body ever since Garland's seat was denied.

No, that process was broken in 2001 - and temporarily restated wit the gang of 14 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

It's a much bigger problem then just this.

> That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016.

Yes, it was. What's your point?

Parent poster claimed that a non-political Supreme Court isn't possible, and in reality, the Supreme Court has been essentially completely non-political for all but about 22 years of its existence

The process was hijacked long before 2016. See "Borking".

Not everyone thinks so: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/03/the-suprem...

Mitch McConnell broke the Senate, and through that, the Judiciary.

This is the problem with partisanship.

Blockade of judges started in 2001, when Democrats declared Bush illigetimate, and decided that no judges would be selected. Republicans threatened the "nuclear option" (removing fillibusters). The "Gang of 14" in 2005 wrote ideological ground rules and approved a set number of judges to keep the nuclear option from being used.

Obama came to office, and the Democrats used the nuclear option - despite the gang of 14 framework, but then said that it doesn't apply to supreme court ballots. Republicans came in and decided that yes, it did apply.

We've been destroying our own government with crap like this for the last 20 years.

Partisanship is a hell of a drug.

Yes and the recent stuff with the wife of a SCOTUS justice involved in conspiracy to overturn an election is definitely a sign of hyper partisanship.

The first hundred had a deadly civil war.

“We managed it for 900 years” someone in the Roman Empire circa 394 AD.

Right up until we didn’t.

And the internet has changed everything. What used to be possible no longer is

No evidence supports this.

No evidence supports the internet causing hyper partisanship or no evidence supports hyper partisanship infecting the Supreme Court?

That what used to be possible no longer is