Texarkana Gazette

Kavanaugh Confirmati­on

Will Senate Democrats again put party before country?

-

Many were worried about who President Donald Trump would choose to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring Associated Justice Anthony Kennedy.

They shouldn’t have been. The president made a sound choice in U.S. Appeals Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has an impressive record. He has demonstrat­ed a healthy respect for the U.S. Constituti­on and court precedent in his well-reasoned opinions. But he has also shown an independen­t streak, which tells us he is not tied to dogma. He may have a more conservati­ve bent than some judges, but he is not the right-wing idealogue so many on the left were expecting.

In our view, he is just what the court needs. Now comes the tricky part: His confirmati­on hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and then a vote by the body as a whole.

The U.S. Constituti­on gives the president power to make judicial and other appointmen­ts with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. It’s part of the system of checks and balances that keep one branch of the government from exercising too much power.

What the framers of the Constituti­on never intended, though, was for political parties to use “advice and consent” for their own gain. And that’s just what the conformati­on process has become.

It’s gone on for a while but the first time the public took real notice was in 1987 when President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court upon the retirement of Associate Justice Lewis Black.

To put it bluntly, Bork was crucified by Democrats. The treatment of Bork was so badly a verb was coined by columnist William Safire—“to bork”—which meant to “savage” a political nominee.

The Senate voted not to confirm Bork. Ironically, that seat was filled by Associated Justice Anthony Kennedy—whom the president has nominated Kavanaugh to replace.

It’s the Senate’s job to vet Kavanaugh for the court. However, it’s been a long time since both parties took up that duty with clean hands and open minds. Both Democrats and Republican­s have brought preconceiv­ed notions and forgone conclusion­s to the table. If the president is a Democrat, Senate Republican­s are bound to vote not to confirm. If the president is Republican, expect the same from Senate Democrats. And that’s the situation we find ourselves in now.

That’s not the way it should be. But frankly, we don’t know if the original intent of “advice and consent” will ever agin see the light of day. Not as long as the parties put their own agendas before the good of the court and country.

Barring unforeseen revelation­s during the hearing, Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court by an overwhelmi­ng vote. President Trump has chosen wisely and there is little doubt Kavanaugh is up to this great responsibi­lity.

The only question now is whether Democrats in the Senate are willing to break with this long and disgracefu­l partisan confirmati­on tradition and do their duty under our Constituti­on.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States