By Ross Douthat
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
In the wake of Antonin Scalia’s death, two lines of
critique are circulating concerning Senate Republicans’ immediate declaration
that they won’t approve any replacement before the next president is elected
and inaugurated. The first, offered by David Frum, Chris Cillizza and others,
holds that Mitch McConnell and Co. would have been better served politically by
pretending to consider an Obama
nominee and then simply using a sixty-vote threshold to avoid approval, rather
than coming across as baldly intransigent from day one. The second one, offered
by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern (who wrote one of the
more generous liberal eulogies for Scalia), goes further and argues that
Senate Republicans are gambling significantly by declining to approve a
moderate-liberal nominee, since if they lose the Senate and the White House
this fall they could end up with a more radical, precedent-overturning liberal
on the court instead of a compromise choice. Here’s Stern:
Whatever the merits of the constitutional argument, the Republicans’
political strategy here is extremely risky. It makes some sense at first
blush—better to roll the dice that a President Rubio or Bush will get to
appoint Scalia’s successor—but completely falls apart upon further analysis.
There are serious compromise candidates on the current shortlist,
extraordinarily qualified moderates like Sri Srinivasan who would likely refuse
to overturn treasured conservative precedents like Heller (establishing an individual right to bear arms) and Citizens United (allowing unlimited
corporate electioneering). If the Senate confirmed a Srinivasan type now, it
might have to swallow a slight liberal SCOTUS tilt—but it could, by and large,
avoid dramatically altering the balance of the court.
If the Senate holds out until January 2017, however, it will be taking
an astonishing gamble. Should voters send another Democrat to the White House
in November, they just may turn the Senate blue again at the same time. At that
point, the president could nominate a true liberal, in the vein of Justice
Sonia Sotomayor—and Senate Democrats could revise the nuclear option and push
him or her through over staunch GOP opposition. Once a Justice Goodwin Liu
takes the bench, no conservative precedent would be safe. Goodbye Heller, goodbye Citizens United, goodbye McCutcheon
and Hobby Lobby and maybe even the
death penalty itself.
This is plausible-enough in a historical vacuum, but it
collapses if you understand how conservatives regard their experience with Supreme
Court nominees. Since 1968, the year that the modern right-of-center political
majority was born, Republican presidents have made twelve appointments to the
Supreme Court; Democratic presidents have made just four. Yet those twelve
Republican appointments, while they did push the court rightward, never
delivered the kind of solid 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority that one might
have expected to emerge. Instead, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Harry
Blackmun all went on to become outspoken liberals, Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy
went on to author decisions sweeping away the nation’s abortion laws and
redefining marriage, Sandra Day O’Connor and Kennedy both ratified Roe v. Wade
— and so on down a longer list of disappointments and betrayals.
Meanwhile, none of the four recent Democratic appointees,
whether “moderate” or liberal, have moved meaningfully rightward during their
tenures. On the crucial cases of the last decade (including the cases Stern
lists) they’ve reliably voted as a bloc. The most genuinely unpredictable of
the four, Stephen Breyer, is basically crusading to eliminate the death penalty
already. The more moderate of President Obama’s two appointments, Elena Kagan,
has voted with the more liberal Sonia Sotamayor more reliably (especially in
5-4 decisions) than, say, Scalia voted with John Roberts. And the court’s only
actual swing vote remains, of course, a Republican appointee.
So telling Republicans that they should accept a moderate
liberal lest they risk a real liberal is likely to inspire a bitter chuckle,
since from the perspective of conservatives they risk at least a moderate
liberal in practically every appointment
anyway. (Including the last Republican president’s, since most fairly or
not many conservatives feel they dodged a bullet with Harriet Miers.) And if
you’re starting from that kind of disadvantage, you simply can’t afford to
throw away even a chance at appointing a real conservative in the name of a
play-it-safe compromise: If there’s one thing conservatives have learned from
forty years of judicial appointment battles, it’s that when you compromise, you
lose.
Further, you lose the most on the issues that animate the
party’s socially-conservative voting base — as opposed to donors, think-tankers
and the Chamber of Commerce —because it’s social issues where time and again
the elite consensus has tugged Republican appointees leftward.
So it’s not just that conservatives have good reasons to
be more skeptical than Stern that even a “moderate” Obama appointee would ultimately
hesitate to overturn (or at least carefully undercut) some of the precedents he
cites; it’s that on certain issues they have extremely well-grounded anxieties.
Tell the average conservative voter that they should accept an Obama appointee
in the hopes of preserving Citizens United and McCutcheon, and they’re likely
to stare blankly and then shrug when you explain the campaign-finance law
implications. But tell them that, despite having a fighting chance to replace
him with a conservative, they should trade their great champion and bulwark on
abortion, marriage and religious liberty — to borrow from one eulogy, “the
mighty rearguard in our long and slow defeat” — for an Obama appointee at a
moment when social liberalism is ascendant and the legal and cultural
consequences of same-sex marriage are beginning to ripple across the country
and the courts … well, they’ll look at you like you’re insane.
And they would be right to do so. There is some gambling
involved in resisting an Obama pick, certainly; there’s some chance of a worse
outcome overall. But given the plausible hope of replacing the court’s most
important conservative with another conservative, accepting a
supposedly-moderate liberal without an electoral fight would be remembered
forever as the G.O.P.’s greatest betrayal of social conservatives, its final
surrender in the culture wars.
And this is, I suspect, why Mitch McConnell took the
hard-line stance he did. The optics are bad, yes, but if you act publicly as
though confirmation is entirely possible and plausible, then you increase the
pressure on purple-state Republicans to go a little further and actually say
that their votes are up for grabs. And this, in turn, would raise the spectre
of a Great Betrayal — however implausible it might be — for suspicious
conservatives, and create the preconditions for a basically pointless
base-versus-leadership war in the middle of a presidential year. Whereas a
harder line gives clear direction to the Rob Portmans and Ron Johnsons that this is what we’re doing, get on board,
and the lumps you take are ones you would probably take anyway when you failed
to confirm Obama’s pick, and there’s no risk of a full-scale conservative panic
attack over the possibility that their leadership and senators might sell them
out.
The counter-argument is that a Portman might survive in
Ohio if he votes for (let’s say) an African-American nominee who goes down
(let’s say) 52-48. But that kind of targeted politics hasn’t worked
particularly well in our nationalized political environment lately, and it
seems even less likely to work in a presidential year. (If Republican
intransigence boosts black turnout for Hillary in Cleveland or Cincinnati,
those extra voters probably aren’t going to think, “oh, but Portman was on our
side, let’s keep him in office.”) And
it’s always possible, in a country where many millions of people don’t even
recognize Antonin Scalia’s name, that Senate intransigence will energize
conservatives more than it excites liberals or alienates swing voters.
Which is not to say that conservatives are in an enviable
position. This is a bad, backs-to-the-wall situation no matter what happens.
But the good options for the right died with Scalia last Thursday night. What
remains is what remains: The choice between pre-emptive surrender and a
perhaps-foredoomed but still necessary last stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment