It would have been better to have gone with honesty in the first place, way back in 2016 (or in any year). Then the current Republican leadership in the United States Senate wouldn't have all these questions to answer about hypocrisy in politics. When President Obama's last nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court didn't get a vote eight months before the 2016 election, the Senate's Republicans leaders should have answered the questions about the delay thusly: Because we can. Elections have consequences, as a president named Obama once noted, and there is a check and balance built into our federal system.
It is altogether natural and expected that a Senate controlled by one political party would act differently when it has a friend in the White House as opposed to when it does not. Politics ain't bean bag, said Mr. Dooley. And there are matters that could come before the court that are life and death. As unserious as politics can be in this Age of Twitter, lifetime appointments to the courts are as serious as it gets.
Cries about fairness are rich, considering Democrats' uses and abuses of their power over the years. Does anybody remember the name Miguel Estrada?
Goodness, but we must've covered an acre of print during that debate. Miguel Estrada was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2001, a post considered a Triple-A position, prepping judges for bigger things down the road. Even though Miguel Estrada had enough support to be approved by the Senate, Democrats filibustered his nomination until he withdrew his own name for consideration.
The reason? Because the man was a Latino, according to a memo to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Partisan Hack), which was leaked to the press. Yes, Democrats didn't want a conservative Latino in position to be on the United States Supreme Court, or a conservative Latino with even a good enough résumé to be considered for it. Wouldn't look good for their identity politics and the always-taken-for-granted Latino vote. And they got their way.
The Harry Reid Rule. To be borked. These are not unfamiliar phrases these days, and for reason. The Wall Street Journal ran a list of candidates who were blocked by Democrats over the years, but also noted recent Democratic appointees who received, for example, 68 Senate votes (Sonia Sotomayor), 87 votes (Stephen Breyer) and 96 votes (Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
But on the occasion when Republicans don't roll over and play dead politically, Democrats vow revenge. Which is what Chuck Schumer did the other day, when he said "nothing" will be off the table if the Republicans in the Senate approve a nominee to replace Madam Justice Ginsburg before a Democrat has had a chance to beat Donald Trump in a few weeks.
"Nothing" is a bold promise. Press reports say that could mean packing the court by adding another two members. (The number of justices on the court is a legal matter, not a constitutional one.) But "nothing" also means a Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate could impeach the newer conservative members of the Court in January. And maybe not just the newer ones. And would anybody be surprised?
Many conservatives are telling the press--and the president--that it is important to get a nominee soonest, and have a vote on the nominee while Donald Trump is still president. As for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, remember that the Court had a liberal bent for decades--and still does. If an issue is big enough, the current chief justice often decides to join the liberal wing for at least a punt on second down. Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't appear to be one to rock the boat. Or challenge precedent.
If another Trump nominee makes it through the Senate, and onto the court, there could possibly be a conservative bent for a few years. This is considered heresy by some in the media. Which says a lot about most folks in the media.
If the Democrats do take back the White House and Senate in November, and do decide to pack the court, or some other retaliation thought up by Sen. Schumer & Co., they'll probably be met with the same type of public outcry that met Franklin D. Roosevelt when he tried it some years ago. Even FDR in his prime couldn't pull it off, so we have doubts the public will allow it from a Joe Biden administration.
Having a president follow his constitutional role in nominating someone to a court--then having the Senate follow its constitutional role to vote on the nominee--is nothing akin to stacking the court. We're pretty confident the American public will see that.
Right now, the polls don't look good for the home team. That is, the president is behind not only nationally but in key states. There's an effort to "flip the Senate" too, and the House looks safely Democratic for now.
The point being, there are a lot of good people who are genuinely fearful what could happen if Washington goes all 2008 on us. Last time it was national health care. Is next time the Green New Deal, more taxes, more regulations, etc.?
Another conservative on the nation's highest court would help check-and-balance a runaway executive and legislative branch.
Half the country would appreciate that.