The judicial branch of the federal government “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 78.

“The judiciary,” he continued, “has no influence over the sword or the purse” and “is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.”

If he had been around during the fight over seating Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, he would have realized that his observations were no longer true. The Supreme Court has become an equal to the Congress and the President in setting policy.

While it may not be the initiating branch, it gives its final stamp of approval or disapproval to almost all major legislation that affects the lives of Americans. And it has become as political as the other two branches with its stamp.

In the debate over a law to revamp the court, Founding Father Charles Pinckney argued that “judges should not be allowed to carry upon the bench those passions and prejudices that too often prevail in the adoption and formation of legislative acts and treaties…”

Charley may be surprised but these have become the principles upon which judges are chosen. They are no longer objective or independent. They are chosen to carry their passions and prejudices to the bench.

Imagine the furor that would grip America if Kavanaugh said that he reassessed Roe vs. Wade, decided that it was a good decision, and would do nothing overturn it. That kind of independence and objectivity is gone. Judges are expected to be liberal or conservative, not thoughtful.

From the first gavel, judges have been chosen who reflected the values of the appointing president. Of course, there were a few exceptions. President Dwight Eisenhower appointed liberal Earl Warren and Jack Kennedy appointed conservative Whizzer White.

While political philosophy was acknowledged as legitimate fodder by the opposing political party, the debates over confirmation were civil. In the Kavanaugh confirmation, civility was cast to the wind and everyone involved became a part of the polarized conflict.

To some extent, the Democrats did not concede the usual respect for the president’s appointee. Of course, a Republican president was going to name a Republican name.

This argument was not as strong in the Kavanaugh case, however, because Trump did not really win the presidency. Hillary Clinton was elected by the people; Trump by the Electoral College. Consequently, when Trump’s defenders champion his most grievous acts by claiming that’s what “the people voted for,” the argument falters.

That being said, Democrats should not have expected the appointment of anyone but a conservative. That privilege goes with the presidency.

Then there was the sexual harassment matter that raised the heat another 50 degrees. Without making a judgment in the matter, we must acknowledge that women are particularly sensitive to sexual abuse because they’ve been victims since the beginning of time.

I could not satisfactorily balance the arguments in the matter but I did learn that Yale students are a bunch of drunks who were not there for their high IQ but because of dad’s checkbook.

As long as we nurture extremism in our politics, we will likely see a repetition of the Kavanaugh extravaganza with every new appointee, regardless of party. Any hope for the kind of rational court expected by the Founding Fathers has been dashed on the rocks of absolutism.

If the Democrats win the House of Representatives, perhaps the new balance of power will result in a mellowing of politics. But if Democrats choose to talk about revenge and impeachment, we will soon catch up to the Roman Empire.

Lloyd Omdahl is a former lieutenant governor of North Dakota and former political science professor at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.