By Ben Domenech
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
For thirty years, Antonin Scalia reminded us that giants
walk the earth. On the high court, he delivered some of the most brilliant
dissents with the march of American progressivism and knew how to wield the
rhetorical knife and the battle-axe alike.
He was a man of mordant humor, jolly wit and surprising
grace, whose scorching logic could cut through the emanations and penumbras and
come at long last to the truth. He was an infuriating figure to the American
left to a degree few justices will ever match because of his capability to lose
a contest and win the argument. They could beat him in the vote, but never in
the debate, and few things sting more than the words of the undefeated man.
And that is how he left us – spending his last hours in
Texas before the morning hunt ebullient, entertaining others with the brilliant
mind that spent the bulk of its time focused on the fight for liberty but had
plenty of brain cells left over for other pursuits, and passing peacefully in
his sleep afterward. This was a good death, at the end of a life well lived.
“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change,”
Scalia said. “It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.”
This includes changing the Supreme Court, which is not intended to be an easy
thing to do. Scalia’s foes – many of whom have written of him in awe in the past
few days, to their credit – are now going to try to make the vacancy left
behind the primary political issue in this election.
Of course President Obama – who could not be bothered to
wear a tie to comment on the man’s death – has every right to nominate a
successor to Scalia. There are no Constitutional grounds for him not doing so.
But the Senate also has the Constitutional right to confirm or reject this
nominee based on their own priorities – there is no reason they simply have to
bend over and accept this nominee.
We have already seen a number of appeals to precedent
regarding this nomination. Chuck Schumer has been trying to walk back what he
said in 2007 – not even an election year yet – where he made clear the
Democratic Senate would under no conditions accept a George W. Bush nominee.
This is not the first time such statements had been made – in 1960, Senate
Democrats even passed a resolution to that effect regarding President
Eisenhower.
It has been more than half a century since an election year
nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court. And of the 36 unsuccessful
nominees to the Court, the vast majority received no up or down vote – the
Senate is not even obligated to do that.
These appeals to precedent are mostly about scoring
points, though, not actually winning the argument. And this argument is,
fundamentally, about the separation of powers – something of the utmost
importance to Scalia in his career. Progressives have no tolerance for the
gridlock that inevitably follows from the separation of power in America, and
would rather sweep the whole inefficiency of this arrangement aside in pursuit
of what they believe to be good governance.
So the President will nominate someone who is happy to
serve a messaging function as opposed to ever getting on the Court, and
Democratic Senators will pound the table and complain – but this is unlikely to
hurt any Republicans politically, even modestly so.
Obstruction of judicial nominees just does not hurt
candidates in either party – since the Court is primarily an institution that
serves to allow America’s elites to overrule the people, its makeup is
primarily an inside game, important to single issue voters, and not a general
priority for the populace.
The long-term impact of this clash, though, could serve
the ends of progressives by providing them with another argument to undermine
the Constitution and the separation of powers. For those who seek sovereignty
at any cost – the ability to rule and dictate, whether or not it is an
authority derived from the consent of the governed – in order to apply their
authoritarian solution for the people, the Madisonian system is a troublesome
anachronism.
A year long battle over blocking a Supreme Court nominee
will only further their conviction that these institutions are archaic
institutions of the past that must be destroyed for the sake of the nation.
They will try, and the students of Scalia will be called upon to make the case,
as he did time and again, that we should “Learn to love the gridlock.” It has been our salvation, time and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment