Supreme Jabberwocky
*********************************************************************
The confirmation hearings this Fall of Amy Coney Barrett is perfectly compatible with precedent and, most importantly, the constitution
*********************************************************************
Democrats and Liberals are whining that Republicans should not move forward with the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett until after the elections when a change of control of the senate and White House might occur.
They argue that Republicans are using a double-standard compared to 2016 when they wouldn’t hold hearings for President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia who died in February of that year but this is nonsense. As history has shown, many confirmations have occurred in presidential election years when the same party controlled both the White House and the senate.
Democrats have shown their bad faith when dealing with Republican Supreme Court nominees they don’t like such as Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork during their confirmation circuses
*********************************************************************
They go on to argue that there will not be sufficient time for a thoughtful consideration of a controversial nominee’s merits, but the truth of the matter is, based upon the confirmation circuses of the past 35 years (see: Brett Kavanaugh [2018]; Robert Bork [1987]; Clarence Thomas [1991]), the only thing “sufficient time” is used for is to keep throwing baseless mud against the nominee until something finally sticks in the public’s mind. If Democrats had their way, 5 years would be “sufficient time” to torpedo Republican nominees (5 days, of course, for Democrat nominees).
They further argue that the justification of references to past confirmations that were completed in five or six weeks doesn’t work as all occurred more than a quarter-century ago and were not nominees who were controversial at the time. But much of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s lauded legal work occurred more than 25 years ago; should that have a shelf-life, too? As to “controversial,” nowadays a ham sandwich is controversial to Democrats and Liberals if the ham’s origins can be traced back to the Koch Brother’s conglomerate.
Their weakest argument is the Republicans’ alleged rush of a Supreme Court appointment and confirmation “before the voters have a chance to be heard.” Yet the voters have been heard. That is, the 2016 and 2018 voters. They elected the current sitting President and senate. And nowhere in the constitution is there language that says they should be disenfranchised in a later election year while their selected leaders are still in office.
While Democrats and Liberals complain of inconsistency between 2016 and 2020, the inconvenient truth is that in both years the President and senate acted and are acting within their constitutional powers which is the only standard that matters, regardless if it brings results that Democrats don’t like.
-I.M. Windee
