Let's put it in perspective at the United States Supreme Court, which hears maybe 60 cases a year, most of the cases are resolved without much dispute. The 10 or 15 that are controversial we all know about, and we hear about. The federal courts hear just a tiny sliver of the cases that go to court in this country. Most of the cases are in the state courts. And most legal issues never go to court. So, the legal system is actually not in jeopardy. At the same time, access to law is in jeopardy.

Let's put it in perspective at the United States Supreme Court, which hears maybe 60 cases a year, most of the cases are resolved without much dispute. The 10 or 15 that are controversial we all know about, and we hear about. The federal courts hear just a tiny sliver of the cases that go to court in this country. Most of the cases are in the state courts. And most legal issues never go to court. So, the legal system is actually not in jeopardy. At the same time, access to law is in jeopardy.

One of the paradoxes of liberal societies arises from the commitment to tolerance. A society committed to respecting the viewpoints and customs of diverse people within a pluralistic society inevitably encounters this challenge: will you tolerate those who themselves do not agree to respect the viewpoints or customs of others? Paradoxically, the liberal commitment to tolerance requires, at some point, intolerance for those who would reject that very commitment.

Deanell Tacha and I decided to write an editorial, because both of us have had experiences in countries where the rule of law is not strong. Uh, where there is civil war. Where there is disorder. And, it, it seemed to us important to underscore that this is a treasure, our rule of law, our judiciary independent from politics, and it's in jeopardy.

Of course, in the states, about half the states elect their judges, and that's an even more direct involvement with politics. But I think it's not the same as the elections of many other candidates. People who run for the judiciary, I think are pretty careful to indicate that they will adhere to the rule of law.

In the era of modern technology, people could just vote on their phones for who they want to be judges. We could amend all of the ways in which we select our leaders, with the advent of modern technology. We haven't done so. It's actually served us fairly well. Ours is the longest enduring constitutional, written constitution in the world. At the moment, I think it's strained. It's showing the strains of politics and a frustration.

I understand the politics of the situation, I think that many Republican members of the senate believe that,get out the vote move. They can indicate that they're strong for their base. But the Constitution's pretty clear. The president Donald Trump has to nominate someone. The senate can choose to disapprove. There's nothing in their Constitution that says the grounds upon which they must vote. But to refuse even to meet with the individual, or to have the process go forward, that's just pure politics.