 |
| Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett (SCOTUS blog) |
The idea of replacing a conservative with a liberal did not sit well with Senate Republicans. They were in the majority and since the Senate is the body in charge of approving the Supreme Court nominee, they fought it saying that in an election year, a lame duck President should not be the one to choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Because he or she could influence decisions for decades to come. Let the next President choose a candidate… giving the people an opportunity to express their views by who they elected to make that choice.
Democrats countered that the U.S. Constitution obligated the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm in a timely fashion.
It wasn’t only Democrats that thought along these lines. From Wikipedia:
On February 24, 2016, a group of progressive-leaning U.S. constitutional-law scholars sent an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Senate urging the president to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy and the Senate to hold hearings and vote on the nominee.
The letter, which was organized by the progressive American Constitution Society, stated that it would be "unprecedented" for the Senate to fail to consider a Supreme Court nominee, and "would leave a vacancy that would undermine the ability of the Supreme Court to carry out its constitutional duties."
The signatories wrote that "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees.
Now those very same arguments are being made. But not by the same people. Now Republicans are saying what Democrats said then. And Democrats are saying what Republicans said then. Making members of both parties (with the exception of 2 Republicans) hypocrites!
And we wonder why politicians are trusted about as much as used car salesmen are?!
Are these men and women without ideals? Quite the contrary. They are driven by ideals to the point of flip-flopping when it suits those very ideals. If only they would admit doing so. But they don’t That’s what makes almost all of them hypocrites.
For me the hypocrisy on both sides is so obvious, it should hardly be worth mentioning. Unfortunately this plain fact is being mostly ignored by the media. At least as far as Democrats are concerned. Because only Republicans are being challenged that way by the media. Very little if anything is being said about Democrats flip-flopping.
I have been saying for quite some time just how obvious media bias has been since President Trump was elected. It has gone from being so subtle before his election that I didn’t even realize it - to being so blatant that only diehards of the liberal left see it as balanced.
Just to be absolutely clear, this has nothing to do with my views about the President. He could be the biggest scoundrel in modern history to ever hold high public office. It only has to do with how his Presidency is being spun by the media whose reportage of the man is dripping with hatred. Making it anything but balanced.
Back to the issue at hand. The only thing balanced right now in the US senate is the hypocrisy on both sides. Which means that it doesn’t really matter much what each side says about the other. It matters only what the ideals being fought over actually are: Will the court be liberal or conservative?
What is perhaps more important is what will actually happen. The constitution tells us that. Those liberal legal scholars were right. The President has the obligation to choose the nominee and the Senate has the obligation to advise and consent.
Republicans are the current majority by four votes. As noted two of Republicans have indicated the nomination should be delayed. That still leaves a 52 member Republican majority. They have said they will vote to approve the nomination of Judge Barrett if the hearings do not reveal anything that would preclude her from the position. Making her appointment to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg all but assured.
Leaning politically conservative as I do, I am very happy about this choice. Although I have some liberal leanings, I strongly believe that my rights as a religious Jew will be better protected by a conservative court.
Some of the more recent decisions by the court (by narrow margins) tended to favor civil rights over religious rights when they appeared to clash. That trend will probably end when Judge Barrett is confirmed. There will be a 6-3 conservative majority.
What about the American public? A recent survey indicated that about 65% of the American people think we should wait until after the election. That percentage matches the percentage of American people in recent survey that said God does not matter too much in their lives. (Which in my view is a disturbing statistic all by itself – but beyond the scope of this post). But even if that poll is accurate, what is important is what the constitution says. That is what has always governed the law. And that is what will determine the future of this country for decades to come. God bless the United States of America.
