No hugs for this flawed process
The selection of a Supreme Court justice should be an enlightening moment to learn about the judiciary’s role and the candidate’s philosophy. A lifetime appointment should be weighted with importance and understanding. It’s a rare moment when the three branches of government — judicial, executive and legislative — mingle.
The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett flunked this civics test. She revealed next to nothing in her empty answers to a Senate panel quizzing her. Health coverage guarantees, abortion rights, church and state: Well, she just couldn’t say. It’s a playbook that most judicial nominees follow, but Barrett’s barren remarks reached a new depth.
The sorry spectacle has its own twisted path. President Trump, down in the polls but possessing a Senate Republican majority, pushed her name forward in the closing weeks of his reelection bid for a quick win. It’s also political hypocrisy on a grand scale, shredding a GOP position adopted four years ago that an empty court seat in the closing months of a White House term should be left to the next president. The ruling Republicans never even granted a hearing to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.
That was then, and this is now, suggested Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
The debased process is now nearing an end. The Senate Judiciary Committee that held hearings on Barrett voted along party lines. All Republicans backed her. Then came a twist when minority Democrats refused to show up, boycotting the sham selection. Their seats were filled with stadiumlike posters of people who could lose Obamacare coverage if Barrett decides that way. Her committee endorsement will henceforth come with an asterisk noting she was a oneparty nominee as her name progressed.
Time, not reason, is everything now. Senate Republicans are expected to rubber stamp Barrett’s selection next week, possibly Monday. That rush job would seat her in high court robes come Nov. 3 to hear any objections over voter suppression or a presidential refusal to leave office, topics she evaded in her saynothing nomination hearing.
Asked about Trump’s refusal to commit to leaving office should he lose, she responded, “To the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge, I want to stay out of it and I don’t want to express a view.” Sorry, judge, it’s exactly your duty to have an opinion on such an extreme and reckless thought. Vacuous caution has no place in answering such a basic question.
Democrats aren’t happy over the loss, and they’re taking it out on California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the judiciary panel. Ever the institutionalist, she lavished praise on the chairman, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, for his handling of the sideshow. There was even an awkward, posthearing hug between the two.
That gratuitous remark, especially since it helps shore up Republican Graham’s teetering reelection campaign, brought on an outcry to dump her from the panel. The Senate’s top Democrat, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, would only say he had “a long and serious talk” with Feinstein. The furor casts doubt on whether she would become Judiciary chair if Democrats win back the Senate.
The final result for Barrett isn’t hard to predict. With a slim majority in hand, Republicans are poised to give the court a 63 conservative majority. It may be a GOP triumph, but it comes at enormous cost.
The twisted politics and empty rhetoric of the Barrett hearings are another chapter in the false leadership of this presidency. The court and its independent image will be maligned for years.