One is forced to wonder how much sanity still prevails at editorial level in the New York Times. It's exhibiting classic butthurt over the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat (which the NYT calls a "stolen seat") on the US Supreme Court. I've quoted some of its comments in regular text below, with my response in italics.
It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.
- True, they discarded a constitutional duty. So did Senate (and House) Democrats when they were in the majority under the Obama administration, yet failed to submit or pass a budget, as required by law, for years in succession. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. Both sides are as guilty as each other.
In normal times, Judge Gorsuch — a widely respected and, at 49, relatively young judge with a reliably conservative voting record — would be an obvious choice for a Republican president.
These are not normal times.
- What makes them other than normal? Supreme Court appointments have been made in time of war and in time of peace, in economic times good and bad, with rancor or with unanimity. What makes this nomination different from any other?
Judge Garland, a former federal prosecutor and 20-year veteran of the nation’s most important federal appeals court, is both more moderate and more qualified than Judge Gorsuch.
- I don't know about "more moderate" - he's certainly left of center, compared to Judge Gorsuch's right of center. As for "more qualified", good luck with that. Judge Gorsuch's academic and legal records are about as impeccable as both can get, by any standards.
The destructive lesson Senate Republicans taught is that obstruction pays off. Yet they seem to have short memories. After Senate Democrats refused to attend votes on two of Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks on Tuesday, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said, “We did not inflict this kind of obstructionism on President Obama.”
- Agreed. Both sides are as hypocritical and partisan as each other. A plague on both their parties.
Supreme Court nominations are among the most important decisions a president makes, and certainly the most enduring: A nominee like Judge Gorsuch could sit on the court for more than three decades. At a rally last summer Mr. Trump said: “Even if you can’t stand Donald Trump, you think Donald Trump is the worst, you’re going to vote for me. You know why? Justices of the Supreme Court.” That may have played well on the campaign trail, but Mr. Trump’s failure to choose a more moderate candidate is the latest example of his refusal to acknowledge his historic unpopularity and his nearly three-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton. A wiser president faced with such circumstances would govern with humility and a respect for the views of all Americans.
- Oh, shut up! A US President is not elected by popular vote: therefore, by definition, Mr. Trump did not "lose" to Hillary Clinton by any number of votes at all. He won in the only vote count that matters, constitutionally speaking: in the Electoral College (just as former President Obama won in the same venue, irrespective of whether or not he also won the popular vote). Any other vote count is constitutionally meaningless.
As for President Trump's "historic unpopularity", I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would say to that? And as for "a respect for the views of all Americans", I can't help but wonder when former President Obama demonstrated that? Yesterday I quoted his perspective on his first election victory. Is President Trump doing anything different?
I daresay Mr. Trump will govern as almost all previous Presidents have governed - on the basis of what he promised to the constituency that voted him into office.
You can read the rest for yourself.
I'm expecting Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearings to be extraordinarily partisan, rancorous and bitter. I hope I'm wrong . . . but I doubt it. The progressive left has dominated US politics for eight years. It can't stand the thought that it's no longer in control - at least for a time, until the political pendulum swings again (as it undoubtedly will).
I can only hope that both sides can learn to work together once more, instead of trying to undo what the other has done every time they swap places in control of Congress and the Senate. If they stick to the politics of destruction, they'll probably take the entire country down with them. (Yes, that applies to Republicans as much as Democrats, and to the right wing as much as to the left wing of US politics.)
Peter
10 comments:
As someone pointed out yesterday, Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously. People casting votes to confirm him included... Obama, Clinton, Biden. If he's so horrible, why'd they vote to confirm earlier? Were they stupid and ignorant then, or stupid and ignorant now? What, specifically, has he done to make them change their minds?
Contrary to what Democrats claim, not only is the Senate not required to act on any particular nominee, there have been times in the past when vacancies were open as long or longer than in this current round. At one point the Supreme Court was even down to 7 justices!
My take on the recent election is a little different from most. What I saw was the rank and file of both parties trying to nominate somebody outside of their party's establishment. The Republicans managed with Trump. The Democrat establishment resorted to power games to squash Sanders. The Republican rank and file turned out to elect their outsider. The Democrat rank and file stayed home, or voted for the only outsider they were offered ... even if he were from the other party.
Now the Democrat establishment may be the loudest about no learning a goddamned thing from this election, at least for now. But if the Republican establishment plays business as usual in Congress the Republicans could be in trouble too. I shall be watching the jockeying in Washington and the mid-term electioneering with interest.
Of course if the economy recovers under Trump - whether he has anything to do with it or not - the level of discontent with the party establishments may drop. Or the electorate may turn out to be so fed up with Business As Usual that we see some real upheaval.
It must really suck for democrats to find the Biden Rule used against them. As it will suck to find Harry Reid's nuking of the filibuster in order to stack the DC Circuit used against them.
Gorsuch will face a confirmation hearing that will make Robert Bork's look like a walk in the park. But unless he has serious skeleton's in his closet, or an attractive black clerk who can be flipped and convinced to talk about pubic hairs on camera for days on end, he will be the next justice.
Democrats thought that, with the election of "THE ONE" eight years ago, they were going to finally have the one party state they had been working towards since FDR's first term. And, as any two year old can show you, if they don't get what they want, they will make everyone suffer.
Buckle up and pass the popcorn, it's going to be a fun ride.
I'm 65 years old and lost count of the number of times I've seen this same song and dance.
When the Dem/libs win it's all "We won, elections have consequences., get over it!"
When they lose it's all "In a spirit of fairness we must all compromise and meet in the middle."
But this time they're up against the man who wrote The Art Of The Deal, poor inept misguided babies.
As for the party of NO! I lay that blame squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of one Senator Harry Reid. For eight long years the Republicans tried their best to submit legislation, six of them with a House majority, and in every case Reid as Senate Majority leader killed those bills. As Senate leader he had that power. I highly suspect that was the main reason for his retirement, that he saw the handwriting on the wall and could not stand the thought of losing that power as the Dems became the Senate minority.
Will note in passing that Reid entered service as a senator a poor man, by law earned only his senate pay, and yet managed to retire a multi millionaire. Odd that.
He's being far, far too nice ...
I'd have named Atilla the Hun to lead the Reformed Imperial Senate. :-)
Liberals have proven they want to change the United States into their perceived Social Utopia. Many of their accomplishments toward that goal included decisions by a corrupted Supreme Court.
At this time, regardless of Democrat responses, Republicans should use everything within their power to put justices on the Supreme Court that believe the Constitution is not a document that needs translating, and understand removing the government from meddling is a very good thing.
The GOP had better realize that they have less than two years to get their act together and fix the government. Come mid-terms, they are toast if they haven't done a noticeably good job. The rest will follow along in the next elections.
Grow some balls, or get lost!
"I can only hope that both sides can learn to work together once more..."
Pfft. As Jess and Uncle Lar have pointed out, the Left only seeks 'compromise' and 'bipartisanship' when they think it suits their endgame. We're not falling for it again. We were willing to play by the rules, until the Left purposely and willingly threw the rulebook out the window. Now, we've finally woken up and realized that what we thought was a boxing match has become a streetfight.
So be it. They set the terms, but they're going to be very surprised when they find out we're now ready and willing to meet them on those terms. I do not think it will end well for them. At all.
And that includes, Jess, having the DoJ under Sessions charge Kagan and Sotomayor with perjury for lying under oath to Congress during their confirmation hearings.
Post a Comment