I'm going to be honest. I'm actually a firm believer in "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", and we have Gorsuch on the SCOTUS and not Merrick because the Senate didn't listen to Democrats in 2016. It is only right and fair to apply the same rules now (especially this close to the election).
Except for the fact that I fully believe the Democrats will do everything in their power to cheat this election and it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. And a 4-4 split (though perhaps not likely is certainly possible... I give it a 45-55% chance) would basically bring the government down. So I'd forgive the Senate for ramrodding through a SCOTUS pick. I also don't think there would be the votes to push it through prior to an election challenge reaching the Court.
Basically, I think we (the country as a whole) are screwed.
Sure, I'm all about fairness, but this year is not like 2016 in one key respect. That year, the President was a Democrat and the Senate was controlled by Republicans. So, Republicans did the smart thing for once and ignored the nomination. That's completely within the Constitution.
This year, the President is a Republican and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Completely different situation, and again we're going to follow the Constitution.
If the parties were reversed, it wouldn't matter. Obama did in fact nominate Garland with less than a year left in his presidency, so of course it's fine that Trump does the same. If the Senate had been controlled by the Dems in 2016, they would have confirmed Garland, which would have been fine, and if the Senate were controlled by Dems now, they would ignore any Trump nominee.
That's all within the Constitution, and I think it's all fine. That's the way the game is played.
What politicians--not just Progressive-Democrats--said in 2016 vs 2020 has no meaning whatsoever; it's an irrelevant argument.
There have been nearly 30 times that Supreme Court Justices have been nominated in Presidential election years, and most of them got floor confirmation votes (with several--most?--getting confirmed). Indeed, there have been three cases of Supreme Court Justices being nominated after the election by the losing President--and they got floor votes, too, prior to the new guy's inauguration.
What's significant here is the artificiality of the Progressive-Democrats' kerfuffle over "Senate tradition." There is no Senate tradition on Justice nominations. Full stop. If the Progressive-Democrats do want to get sticky about "Senate" tradition," though, we can talk about the Progressive-Democrats' and their Democrat forebears' tradition of character assassination of Republican Presidents' Justice nominations, including guys like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh.
And Republican Appellate Court nominations where the then-Democrats said, "No, we just don't feel like having a vote on this guy," which they did to Miguel Estrada.
In the end, too, it's not about tit-for-tat behaviors or good for the goose stuffings, it's about upholding the only tradition that truly exists--and it's far more than tradition; it's Constitutional obligation: the President nominates Justices (among others), and the Senate advises and consents, refuses consent, or merely withholds consent. And the sitting President and Senators are the people's choice; the people's choice doesn't expire, nor do sitting Presidents' and Senators' obligations under our Constitution expire, at Progressive-Democrat convenience.
Full stop.
Except for the fact that I fully believe the Democrats will do everything in their power to cheat this election....
The Progressive-Democrats have already announced they intend to cheat this election with mail-out ballots--and their deliberate conflation with absentee ballots--and ballot harvesting, and to dispute the election outcome with lawfare in the courts and with violence in the streets.
3 comments:
I'm going to be honest. I'm actually a firm believer in "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", and we have Gorsuch on the SCOTUS and not Merrick because the Senate didn't listen to Democrats in 2016. It is only right and fair to apply the same rules now (especially this close to the election).
Except for the fact that I fully believe the Democrats will do everything in their power to cheat this election and it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. And a 4-4 split (though perhaps not likely is certainly possible... I give it a 45-55% chance) would basically bring the government down. So I'd forgive the Senate for ramrodding through a SCOTUS pick. I also don't think there would be the votes to push it through prior to an election challenge reaching the Court.
Basically, I think we (the country as a whole) are screwed.
Sure, I'm all about fairness, but this year is not like 2016 in one key respect. That year, the President was a Democrat and the Senate was controlled by Republicans. So, Republicans did the smart thing for once and ignored the nomination. That's completely within the Constitution.
This year, the President is a Republican and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Completely different situation, and again we're going to follow the Constitution.
If the parties were reversed, it wouldn't matter. Obama did in fact nominate Garland with less than a year left in his presidency, so of course it's fine that Trump does the same. If the Senate had been controlled by the Dems in 2016, they would have confirmed Garland, which would have been fine, and if the Senate were controlled by Dems now, they would ignore any Trump nominee.
That's all within the Constitution, and I think it's all fine. That's the way the game is played.
What politicians--not just Progressive-Democrats--said in 2016 vs 2020 has no meaning whatsoever; it's an irrelevant argument.
There have been nearly 30 times that Supreme Court Justices have been nominated in Presidential election years, and most of them got floor confirmation votes (with several--most?--getting confirmed). Indeed, there have been three cases of Supreme Court Justices being nominated after the election by the losing President--and they got floor votes, too, prior to the new guy's inauguration.
What's significant here is the artificiality of the Progressive-Democrats' kerfuffle over "Senate tradition." There is no Senate tradition on Justice nominations. Full stop. If the Progressive-Democrats do want to get sticky about "Senate" tradition," though, we can talk about the Progressive-Democrats' and their Democrat forebears' tradition of character assassination of Republican Presidents' Justice nominations, including guys like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh.
And Republican Appellate Court nominations where the then-Democrats said, "No, we just don't feel like having a vote on this guy," which they did to Miguel Estrada.
In the end, too, it's not about tit-for-tat behaviors or good for the goose stuffings, it's about upholding the only tradition that truly exists--and it's far more than tradition; it's Constitutional obligation: the President nominates Justices (among others), and the Senate advises and consents, refuses consent, or merely withholds consent. And the sitting President and Senators are the people's choice; the people's choice doesn't expire, nor do sitting Presidents' and Senators' obligations under our Constitution expire, at Progressive-Democrat convenience.
Full stop.
Except for the fact that I fully believe the Democrats will do everything in their power to cheat this election....
The Progressive-Democrats have already announced they intend to cheat this election with mail-out ballots--and their deliberate conflation with absentee ballots--and ballot harvesting, and to dispute the election outcome with lawfare in the courts and with violence in the streets.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment