"Where you stand depends on where you sit." That is an old and very true adage in government, equally applicable to both parties.
Is it outrageous to block consideration of a Supreme Court nominee indefinitely and leave the ninth chair empty? For nearly 10 months now we have heard that from our friends on the left side of the aisle. Now we have a new statement from Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, as Kristina Peterson reports in the WSJ.
So, it's only outrageous if the other side does it. And how is "mainstream" defined?
Is it outrageous to block consideration of a Supreme Court nominee indefinitely and leave the ninth chair empty? For nearly 10 months now we have heard that from our friends on the left side of the aisle. Now we have a new statement from Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, as Kristina Peterson reports in the WSJ.
Mr. Schumer told reporters Wednesday that if Mr. Trump were to send up a mainstream nominee, Democrats would "give them a very careful look." But if "they're out of the mainstream, we will fight them tooth and nail," he said.* * *When asked if Democrats would be comfortable leaving the ninth seat open on the Supreme Court, Mr. Schumer said "absolutely."
So, it's only outrageous if the other side does it. And how is "mainstream" defined?
Mr. Schumer declined to comment on the merits of the list of possible high-court justices that Mr. Trump released during his campaign. But the Democratic leader said on MSNBC Tuesday night that it was unlikely Democrats would embrace any Supreme Court nominee from Mr. Trump that Republicans could support.How did we come to a situation where nominees unacceptable to one party include all of those acceptable to the other?
The root cause is judicial activism.
Imagine a world where everyone agrees that the Supreme Court's job is to enforce every provision of the Constitution as it was understood when it was adopted and that anyone who wants to change the Constitution must push through an amendment. If amending the Constitution proves too difficult, then the solution is to amend the amending process to make it easier, not to have the Supreme Court sit as a continuing constitutional convention, proposing and ratifying its own amendments at will.
In such a world there would still be disagreements but the stakes would be much lower. With less at stake, appointments and confirmations would be less contentious.
But this world is only hypothetical. I expect that any genuine originalist will swiftly be declared "out of the mainstream" by Senator Schumer, the New York Times, and the usual suspects.
So what can they do about it? To block a nominee, Democrats would either have to (1) peel off three Republican votes while holding all of theirs, or (2) filibuster. Since Harry Reid et al. have established the precedent that the rules on filibusters can be changed by a simple vote of a majority to ignore the rules, neither is very likely.
With neither a Senate majority nor the White House, Democrats would be better off distinguishing between all-weather originalists and conservative judicial activists. Accept nominees who question Mapp v. Ohio and keep out those who would bring back Hammer v. Dagenhart. Some influence is better than none, and taking an attitude of "we won't accept anyone you will" is a recipe for none.
Imagine a world where everyone agrees that the Supreme Court's job is to enforce every provision of the Constitution as it was understood when it was adopted and that anyone who wants to change the Constitution must push through an amendment. If amending the Constitution proves too difficult, then the solution is to amend the amending process to make it easier, not to have the Supreme Court sit as a continuing constitutional convention, proposing and ratifying its own amendments at will.
In such a world there would still be disagreements but the stakes would be much lower. With less at stake, appointments and confirmations would be less contentious.
But this world is only hypothetical. I expect that any genuine originalist will swiftly be declared "out of the mainstream" by Senator Schumer, the New York Times, and the usual suspects.
So what can they do about it? To block a nominee, Democrats would either have to (1) peel off three Republican votes while holding all of theirs, or (2) filibuster. Since Harry Reid et al. have established the precedent that the rules on filibusters can be changed by a simple vote of a majority to ignore the rules, neither is very likely.
With neither a Senate majority nor the White House, Democrats would be better off distinguishing between all-weather originalists and conservative judicial activists. Accept nominees who question Mapp v. Ohio and keep out those who would bring back Hammer v. Dagenhart. Some influence is better than none, and taking an attitude of "we won't accept anyone you will" is a recipe for none.
Schumer Warns Trump: Democrats to Fight Hard-Right Policy Agenda
- Senate Democrats said Jan. 3 they’re gearing up to oppose President-elect Donald Trump’s policy agenda.. non-mainstream judicial picks -
“If President-elect Trump lets the hard-right members
of Congress and the Cabinet run the show ...we’ll fight him tooth and nail"
--- --- ---
Incidentally, the "hard right" did not create the 'nuclear option,'
Democrats did; the hard right did not 'Bork' any highly qualified
Supreme Court nominee, Democrats did; the hard right did not
present an unsubstatiated accuser and conduct a sexual
harassment investigation by the FBI of another
Supreme Court nominee, Democrats did.
So 'sophist Schumer' is at least consistent with the lamentable history
of the iniquitous Democrat party.
~ www.dailywire.com/news/5185/6-pieces-evidence-anita-hill-was-lying-
amanda-prestigiacomo;
thefederalist.com/2016/04/18/3-major-problems-with-confirmation-
hbos-anita-hill-history-rewrite/
~ Past is not prologue; it is predictive:
“With respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues
that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. ... "“I will do everything in my power to prevent
one more ideological ally from joining..”
~ eaglerising.com/30294/democrats-demagogue-on-supreme-court-forget-
their-own-history-of-judicial-obstruction/