Order In The Court
Now that a respectable amount of time has passed since her death, just a few comments on the politics of replacing RBG.
A bunch of Democrats are saying the president should wait till after the election and the people have spoken. This is not a serious argument, it's partisans grasping at straws. (Mind you, both sides are equally hypocritical when it comes to what non-Constitutional rules they believe apply.) So it's especially weird when people who claim to be nonpartisans think this is a valid point.
Trump's position as president is clear--name a replacement. It follows the rules set forth in the Constitution and it's always been done this way. On top of that, since the Court has become politicized in ways never imagined, not trying to get someone in would be dereliction of duty. Trump might as well win reelection and then turn down the White House, offering it to Biden.
Can Trump succeed is another question. Regardless of the pick, there will be tremendous pressure on Republican senators not to okay the choice. At present, a number look pretty wobbly (some having already come out against a nomination), and all the Dems need to do is pick off four. (It's guaranteed no Democrat will break ranks, and it seems doubtful any will even be made to worry about their decision.) So who knows at this point. But Trump has got to try.
Then there's the rhetoric from Dems, warning they'll burn the place down, and if they win the Senate nothing is off the table. (My first political reaction after hearing about the death was to think with all the Dems pretending to talk about principle, let's get them on record right now disavowing a court packing plan, no matter what happens.) Talk about empty threats. You're going to burn the place down? You mean you'll riot? And nothing is off the table? Are you going to impeach the President over nothing again? And as far as the Senate rules, you already promised to rewrite them if you took over.
Also, it's possible in the next few weeks some may make arguments about preserving the Court's "ideological balance." This meaningless phrase can only be spoken by people lying, either to you or to themselves.
The only question at this point is how it'll play out politically. We already know what the press will say, but what the people think is what matters. They'll decide everything. Check the polls. The politicians sure will.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:30 AM
3 Comments:
You must agree with Lindsey Graham's "Hold my words against me" means nothing- thats the only explanation for this foolish post
Could you be specific as to what you consider foolish?
As for Graham, every Democrat in 2016 said it's the duty of the President to quickly fill the empty seat on the SC, and the duty of the Senate to vote on his nominee. And Republicans said the opposite. Everyone not blinded by politics understood back then--as they understand now--these people were just saying such things for partisan reasons.
(By the way, it took 42 days from nomination to vote for RBG.)
On procedural questions, neither party has any principles. When Republicans hold the Senate majority and Democrats the minority, the Democrats claim that the filibuster is the key to saving the nation, while Republicans threaten to remove it. Then when control of the Senate switches, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer switch positions. And this isn't even a secret.
That's fine with me. I don't see why procedural questions should be are matters of principles. The Constitution gives the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court certain powers. Their job is to use them -- that's what they are paid for.
Trump was elected for a four-year term: should he stop appointing judges after three years? In 2009, Democrats had enough votes to pass Obamacare: should they have refused to do so without Republican votes, in order to be "bipartisan"? In 2000, Bush won in a close election: should he have "governed from the center" instead of keeping his campaign promises, because he lacked a "mandate"? In 1940, FDR believed he could do good things if he was elected to a third term; should he have declined because of the unwritten tradition?
If we want presidents not to nominate judges after three years, we can amend the constitution to say so. But my guess is that if we did that, people would get upset when he nominated judges after two and a half years.
In 2016, Mitch McConnell appealed to "the Biden rule" to make his non-confirmation of Merrick Garland seem "principled". This was nonsense, and everyone in Washington knew it then, and everyone knows it today. But McConnell in 2016 and 2020 are perfectly consistent with the only rules that are actually binding: the ones in the Constitution assigning powers to each branch.
I just wish that Congress would actually attempt to use its powers instead of handing its authority to SCOTUS. Chuck Grassley spilled the beans when he said that Bostock had done Congress a favor by "negat[ing] Congress’s necessity for acting". Because the Constitution gives the Senate the authority to confirm judges and the authority not to confirm them, but it does not give the Senate the authority to delegate its Article I powers to the Supreme Court.
Post a Comment
<< Home