Shortsightedness of tit-for-tat thinking dominating country

Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian nationalist movement against British rule in the early 20th century, famously said, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”

It was Gandhi’s take on an Old Testament reference to the appropriate response to violence. For Gandhi, nonviolence was the only answer. An eye for an eye only extends the pain. If we punish the offenders, we’re no better than them. And we’re leaving the big problems unresolved. Gandhi believed instead in peaceful means, like dialogue, to effect social change.

Now I can’t help but wonder if our country isn’t going blind — in the political arena — from the same sort of tit-for-tat thinking that’s ruling the day. At the very least, our collective vision as a nation is blurring.

For this, we can blame some of our elected officials in Washington, D.C. That’s the unofficial capital of tit-for-tat.

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin a widely anticipated hearing to consider the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The hearing will last for only three or four days. After a chorus of opening statements by committee members in both parties, questioning of Barrett is expected to begin on Tuesday. This will be followed by testimony from supporters and legal experts.

The committee is likely to clear Barrett’s nomination by Oct. 26, leaving the full Republican-led Senate with a week or so to confirm Barrett, just before the presidential election.

Naturally, Democrats are concerned about adding another conservative justice to the Supreme Court. Barrett has said or written opinions that lead Democrats to believe she will vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act (a case is on the docket in November), samesex marriage and Roe v. Wade, which protects abortion rights.

If any of those things were to come to pass, the impact would be momentous. And to any injury, the GOP also intends to add insult.

It bothers many fairminded Americans that Republicans are rushing to confirm Barrett — in violation of their own precedent. In 2016, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell blocked the confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland under the pretext that a president (in that case, Barack Obama) should not be able to pick a Supreme Court justice in an election year. It amounted to an 11-month blockade of a nominee who was chosen fair and square.

Which brings us back to tit-for-tat, as Democrats consider what to do, given the likelihood of Barrett’s confirmation.

One idea gaining traction is so-called court packing, or increasing the total number of Supreme Court justices. While the Constitution doesn’t specify the number of seats, nine justices have served on the High Court since 1869. Congress has the power to pass a bill to change that.

If Joe Biden wins the presidential election, and Democrats retake the Senate, Biden could push Congress to expand the court.

This would give him the opportunity to nominate enough liberal justices to shift the court’s ideological core to the left.

The idea of court packing originated with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in 1937 promoted legislation that would increase the number of justices from nine to as many as 15. Roosevelt proposed adding a justice to the court for each sitting justice who refused to retire after age 70. The plan would have given a big edge to Democrats. FDR failed in his attempt, and the court packing episode is seen by many historians as a classic example of hubris-inspired presidential overreach.

So, with a court comprised of six conservative justices and three liberals, as is likely, Biden would need to nominate (and the Senate would need to confirm) another four liberal justices in order to tip the balance. That would bring the total to 13 justices, six conservatives and seven liberals.

When would it end? No one knows. When they control the White House and Senate again, Republicans will surely up the ante for their gain. Tit-for-tat.

An eye for an eye may feel like quick justice in the moment. But as Gandhi believed, it can be ineffective, and even destructive. With so much at stake, we must learn to work together to create lasting change. The very future of our democracy depends on it.