"I never really focused on religious beliefs. They are really, in my view, irrelevant to her qualification. Everybody's entitled to believe or practice and worship as they like. My focus is on substantive issues."
--Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) last week, on a possible Supreme Court nominee
And here some of us thought that belief and worship were substantive issues.
It might sound strange, but there was never talk about expanding the United States Supreme Court beyond nine members when the court had a liberal bent for, say, five or six decades. Adding more seats to the court to give it a conservative outlook during, say, the Reagan or Bush II years would have been considered nigh-criminal. There would have been protests in the streets, and articles of impeachment drawn up at the very mention. But now that a Republican president, with a Republican Senate, seems inclined to take advantage of political circumstances and put another conservative on the Court, suddenly "nothing is off the table."
"Nothing is off the table" is the phrase from Sen. Chuck Schumer, and we take him at his word. Would anybody be surprised if his party tried to add four more justices to a Court that's had nine since, oh, 1869? Or impeach a couple of the more conservative ones to even things out again--that is, to even it out so liberals outnumber conservatives?
Speaking of impeachment, there's word that the Congress might impeach Donald Trump again, just to slow things down.
All this proves that Democrats understand how important the Supreme Court is. Do Republicans?
Other thoughts on a nomination:
• As this is written, we don't know who the nominee will be. Supposedly the president will decide (has decided?) this weekend. The public has been told he wants a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But this much we can feel safe in predicting: The nominee will be completely unacceptable. To a certain political party. Just as Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were.
How do we know the nominee will be completely unacceptable? Because all Republican nominees to the high court are completely unacceptable to Democrats. Even the moderate-to-a-fault chief justice, John Roberts, was unacceptable to 22 Democrats when he was confirmed in 2005. Including these senators: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden. You can look it up. They all voted against his confirmation.
• There is more talk among the commentariat that the Supreme Court should have term limits. That would take a Constitutional amendment. But editorialists and columnists are discussing it seriously. Again, we don't remember such talk in the 60 or so years that liberals dominated the Court.
Apparently Big Changes--constitutional changes--are in order when conservatives get nominated to high posts.
• The politics of all this, and the scolding from the media, might remind some folks of the state of American politics after the razor-thin election of 2000, and we don't mean just for president. If you'll remember, the Senate was divided 50-50 in January 2001. But with incoming-Vice President Dick Cheney taking over as the president of the chamber, with a tie-breaking vote, the Republicans still had the advantage in legislation. And that could not stand.
Because of the even split among elected senators, the Democrats demanded power-sharing. The Republican in charge, Trent Lott, eventually caved: "This resolution may haunt me, but it's fair and it allows us to go on with the people's business," he told the press.
The Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, "hailed the arrangement," according to The Washington Post archives. Republican members grumbled; Democratic members hired staff.
After all, this is how it should work: When Democrats have a political advantage, they push it home, and lecture about how elections have consequences. When Republicans have a political advantage, they should play nice, extend a hand to the loyal opposition, and not do too much.
And we can't help but think: Isn't that why so many people voted for Donald Trump?