Court controversy a bipartisan effort
Elections do, indeed, have consequences, one of which is an elected president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg dying before Trump left the White House was the Democrats’ worst nightmare. Well, almost. The worst is Trump winning a second term, which will trigger a level of apoplexy so seismic that the tectonic plates might reshuffle like a deck of cards.
There’s nothing new or precedent-shattering about a president nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year or during a lame-duck session. It’s happened 29 times and in 17 of those cases, when the president’s party held the senate, the nominee was confirmed.
Trump is well within his rights to nominate a justice to replace Ginsburg, as was Obama when he nominated Merrick Garland to succeed Antonin Scalia who died suddenly in 2016, prior to the election. The problem for Obama was that he had to try to get Garland through the Republicancontrolled Senate, which is why Obama nominated the moderate Garland. But Senate Republicans refused to give Garland a hearing. Why? Because they were under no obligation to do so. To be clear, Garland deserved a hearing.
Still, practically speaking, the current hysteria, hand-wringing and charges of hypocrisy by Democrats over Trump’s “timing” are meaningless, as is what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in 2016.
“We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who’s going to make this decision,” McConnell said. “Not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president.”
There’s no real precedent for the timing of replacing a Supreme Court justice, only the unwritten “Thurmond Rule” which said that the senate should stop processing nominees to the federal judiciary in an election year. It’s ironic that Democrats are now waving the informal rule around like a battle flag, considering its namesake, Strom Thurmond, the late South Carolina Republican, would likely make the top 10 of any Democrat’s all-time enemies list.
Had Democrats controlled the Senate in 2016, Garland would currently be sitting on the Supreme Court. If Democrats controlled the Senate today, Trump’s nominee — even the living judicial equivalent of
Mister Rogers or Mother Theresa — would have zero chance of confirmation.
Democrats are understandably infuriated, but their anger, if we’re all being honest, really has nothing to do with timing. It doesn’t even have anything to do with Trump’s nominee. But it has everything to do with their visceral loathing of Trump.
Should the Republicans push through a replacement for Ginsburg, some Democrats have threatened to add to the number of justices on the Supreme Court — and “pack” the court — should they regain control of the White House and Senate. This would, of course, politicize the court even further, which is the point. This is about politics, after all.
Neither side should be laying claim to any moral high ground here. But I must admit, righteous indignation from politicians — Republican or Democrat — is precious.
Yes, it promises to be a cringeworthy spectacle, perhaps the worst. Unfortunately, only the latest in a regrettable series.