"I want you to use my words against me, if there is a republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham says let's let the next president...make that nomination and you can you my words against me and you'd be absolutely right... we are setting the precedent."
Such words were stated by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in a 2016 amidst declining President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Fellow GOP members, including Senate majority leader Mitch Mcconnell, and senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and Marco Rubio all echoed such views asserting that they must wait for the following election to take place before confirming a judge. However, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death just 46 days from the election (which is the 2nd closest in US history), the very same senators are not pushing for a Justice to be appointed.
Criticism of such hypocrisy is valid. By blatantly switching sides, the public and media have blamed the GOP for being "power hungry" and manipulative. However, in 2016, the GOP's opposition to Garland's nomination was based off the idea that the Senate had a republican majority form the 2014 midterm elections and they believed that by waiting a year, the could further expand the Republican party within Congress. This time around, not only do they still have a republican majority, they also have a republican president who would likely nominate a conservative justice, all factors that would favor the GOP.
We've discussed in class the unconstitutional aspect of both the Senate and Supreme Court and whether such bodies of government possess unproportional power. I'm honestly not surprised by the flip because politicians are always trying to advance their own narrative and if the scenario were flipped, I believe Democrats would be displaying the same hypocrisy. Are the republicans afraid that if they wait for the next cycle that they will lose the Senate majority and Trump? Is this a scramble for establish the 6-3 conservative to progressive ratio?
Source 1: Washington Post
Source 2: Politico
Source 3: CNN
Source 4: People
Source 5: New York Times
5 comments:
I think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's vacancy and subsequent replacement is going to be a huge issue of bipartisanship in the Senate. Democrats are not going to want to replace her and most Republicans will stand behind Trump's decision, even if it makes them look like hypocrites. This is pretty ironic considering that Justice Ginsburg had an infamous friendship with Justice Scalia, even though they were on pretty opposite sides of the political spectrum. This situation is definitely not going to play out without a lot of conflict within Congress and even more polarization between Democrats and Republicans.
This is definitely a matter of securing power, otherwise, Trump wouldn't be pushing to appoint a new judge. With so little time before the election, this kind of reminds of the midnight judges where the president appointed judges at the very last minute for the purposes of securing power for their party. But I think regardless of which party is currently in office, if a democrat was currently in office and this happened, I believe that they would also do the same and attempt to appoint a new judge to secure more power. What Lindsey Graham said in 2016 does sound hypocritical, but I guess this is just how politics is.
While I agree with both Liam and Tiffany that if the scenario were reversed Democrats would be making the exact same play Republicans are, the hypocrisy of the many Senators who literally drafted a statement explaining why waiting to appoint a new justice until the President's next term should be precedent really bothers me. Their ability to so easily walk back and ignore their own reasoning, that they articulated so strongly back in 2016, makes it clear that they do not really care for what is fair or just, but only what will give them the upper political edge.
Furthermore, I wonder how the empty Supreme Court seat will effect the upcoming election. Many conservatives who may of not loved Trump in 2016 supported him in the election anyway because of the conservative Supreme Court seat he would secure. If a new justice is not appointed before November 3rd, will this boost Trump's favorability?
As all the previous comments mention, I agree that this hypocrisy is founded in the desire to secure power and control over policy direction; obtaining a concrete majority on the Supreme Court could serve to overturn recent “progressive” measures as well as pass rulings in regards to long contended issues like abortion, marijuana, etc. if the court sees fit. What concerns me greatly is that any checks we have against potential “tyranny” (might be too extreme to call it that, but in some cases, we most definitely can) by this conservative faction are seemingly lost: the Constitution does not actually stipulate a specific number of seats for the Supreme Court, and this would be a saving grace if the Senate Republican majority would not automatically reject any progressive nominee. So, my fear is that even if Biden wins, wouldn’t he be powerless against the will of the Senate and Court? The republican form of government is “supposed” to be accessible, so why does it feel more distant than ever? Restoring balance comes from the foundation, the people being present in not only presidential elections, but in their local communities as well.
Both sides are extremely hypocritical here; Democrats and Republicans have both reversed their positions suddenly when it is convenient to elect a judge during the election year. However, if you think about it more intuitively, this debate is a little worthless because of the differences in the power held by the parties during the time periods; the debate over whether it is reasonable to have a judge appointed during an election year exists solely for brownie points in political fights. The reasoning behind this is because during the 2016 election, the GOP had the senate while Obama held the presidency; they would be able to block any appointments regardless of justification. On the other hand, the Senate and Presidency during this year is held by the same political party who would be willing to appoint a new judge. This kind of behavior has been demonstrated throughout U.S. history; in the 10 attempts by presidents to appoint a judge during an election year while the senate is held by the opposing party, only 2 have been successful, while in the 19 attempts by presidents to appoint a judge during an election year while the senate is held by the same party, 17 have been successful. The justification and flip-flop made both sides, while hypocritical, is all talk and has little bearing on the actual decisions politicians can and will make since it seems that voters will take the side of their preferred political party anyways.
Post a Comment