Oppose, oppose, repeat
A new justice faces old criticisms
ON MONDAY, in the United States Senate, several Democrats took to the floor to denounce the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. And hyperbole was the name of the game. The minority leader, Chuck Schumer, actually said this:
“Today, Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.”
Oh, please.
The only legitimate point Chuck Schumer seemed to have was that the Republicans were being hypocritical because, having the majority in the Senate (for now), they approved a Republican president’s nominee, but didn’t approve a Democratic president’s nominee four years ago. On that, he’s right. But hypocrisy is nothing new in politics. One might imagine, for example, a political party that changed the rules on the filibuster and judicial nominations, only to complain about it later when the rules were turned against its interests.
One of the darkest days in U.S. Senate history? Imagine the outcry if a male senator from the Republican Party had said that about the nomination of a female judge aligned with Democrats. We imagine one particular gossip columnist for The New York Times—Maureen Dowd—would feast on that for several weeks.
Back to Sen. Schumer’s floor speech: “And let the record show that the American people—their lives, and rights, and freedoms—will suffer the consequences of this nomination for generations.”
That’s one way to look at it: suffering. Another way to look at it: The American people—their lives, and rights, and freedoms—will enjoy the consequences of this nomination for generations. For more than one generation, many Americans have complained that the courts have had a liberal bent. Now it appears as though the nation’s highest court will have a more constructionist perspective.
Chuck Schumer somehow is clairvoyant enough to say that the Republican majority approved of the nomination not for Judge—now Justice—Barrett’s qualifications, but for her political views. No matter all her testimoney to the contrary:
“My colleagues insist that Judge Barrett should be confirmed on her credentials alone. That’s all they talk about. They don’t talk about her views on the issues, only qualifications. Well, this canard is about as transparent as a glass door. Everyone can see right through it. What is the real reason Republicans are so desperate to rush Judge Barrett onto the Supreme Court? Of course it’s not because of her qualifications!”
And to the meat of his argument: “Why? It’s not because she’s more qualified than Judge [Merrick] Garland was. What is the difference between Barrett and Garland? The difference is not qualifications but views. We know that. We all know that: health care, a woman’s right to choose, gun safety, you name it. It’s because the far-right wants Judge Barrett’s views on the court, but not Judge Garland’s.
“The truth is, this nomination is part of a decades-long effort to tilt the judiciary to the far-right; to accomplish through the courts what the radical right and their allies—Senate Republicans—could never accomplish through Congress.
“Senate Republicans failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, so President Trump and Republican attorneys general are suing to eliminate the law in court.
“Republicans would never dare to attempt to repeal Roe v. Wade in Congress, so they pass onerous laws in state legislatures, that they control, to drive that right to point of near extinction, and then provoke the Supreme Court to review Roe v. Wade. The far-right has never held a majority on the court to limit Roe v. Wade or Griswold. But if Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett—it very well might.”
There is a lot to unpack there. For starters, let’s note hypocrisy again: Accomplishing legal change in the courts when a political party cannot accomplish that change through the legislative branch is a liberal speciality, and has been since memory runneth not to the contrary. To have somebody like Chuck Schumer complain about that, is rich.
And to his point about qualifications vs. views: Apparently it’s okay for a potential justice to have political views, and speak of them openly, as long as they agree with Chuck Schumer’s views. Judge Garland would have been fine with the senator from New York. Amy Coney Barrett has the wrong views, as he perceives them.
SOMEBODY of a more balanced nature might not be so apopletic about the nomination and confirmation of the fifth woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. A cynic might even say that anybody nominated by this president would have faced the same criticism.
Some of us can remember when Donald Trump nominated, and the Senate approved, Neil Gorsuch to the court.
According to several Democratic senators quoted in the papers back then, Neil Gorsuch showed “a stunning lack of humanity” in his rulings, who “doesn’t even trust workers to make their own medical decisions,” and should have to “explain his hostility to women’s rights, support of corporations over workers and opposition to campaign finance reform.” Jeff Merkley of Oregon called the day of Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation a “very dark day for America.” (Sound familiar?) And headlines shouted that Democrats were “going to war” over the nomination.
A senator from New York state, named Chuck Schumer, warned that Neil Gorsuch would be a lackey to corporate interests, and average Americans would rue the day. Note well: They have not.
The job of the loyal opposition is to oppose. American opposition parties make good administrations better, and bad administrations gone. But with all his experience at opposition, you’d think that Chuck Schumer would be better at it. He’s had so much practice.