By Pascal Emmanuel Gobry
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
On issues of constitutional process people always seem to
fall down on partisan lines.
On the issue of replacing Antonin Scalia on the highest
court of the land, it's been the same rigmarole. The Republicans, who control the
Senate, have said that they're not going to confirm any nominee this year. The
rationale is obvious: They hope that the GOP wins the next presidential
election (and holds on to the Senate) so that they can appoint a conservative
justice, which wouldn't be the case with an Obama appointment. There's also a
political rationale: With Scalia's seat essentially on the ballot, this is a
priceless opportunity to turn out the base.
And, predictably, liberals are crying foul. The president
has a constitutional right to appoint justices! "Failing to fill this
vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential
constitutional responsibilities," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.). Conservatives are bleating about respecting the Constitution even as
they trample it underfoot! The tweets write themselves, and they have.
But this is nonsense.
Both sides are playing politics on this. Both parties
have played an escalating game of tit-for-tat obstructionism on judicial
appointments for the past 30 years, as the importance of the court in the
policymaking process has grown, and as partisan division has become more
bitter. Both parties have tried to stall nominations, hoping for a better
political climate.
But conservatives have a long memory and one reason why
they're playing the world's smallest violins to Democrats' complaints about
fair process when it comes to judicial appointments is because this whole
acrimonious vendetta process started in 1987 — with Reagan's nomination of Robert
Bork to fill a Supreme Court seat — when Democrats orchestrated an
unprecedented smear campaign against a respected constitutional scholar.
Some conservatives can quote from memory former Sen. Ted
Kennedy's infamous, and slanderous, floor speech against Bork:
Robert Bork's America is a land in
which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at
segregated lunch counters… writers and artists could be censored at the whim of
the government…. President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be
able to…impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court
and the next generation of Americans. [Ted Kennedy]
Bork was eventually rejected, and his rejection led to
the appointment of our current philosopher-king, Anthony Kennedy. The
demagoguery was so intense that it became a verb, "borking," to
intentionally and maliciously destroy the character of a nominee for political
reasons. And it's the borking precedent that has made the Supreme Court
appointment process so broken. So conservatives have no patience with
progressive crocodile tears about constitutional process and playing politics.
The Constitution requires the "advice and
consent" of the Senate. The leader of the Senate majority, Mitch
McConnell, has given his advice to the president: "Don't appoint
somebody." For the Senate to say that before even considering the eventual
nominee is a breach of decorum, sure, but a breach of decorum is not a breach
of the Constitution. McConnell's statement could be seen as a helpful way to
prevent wasting everyone's time.
This fight exemplifies the Constitution's system of
separation of powers. You need more than one branch of government to do
something important, and when those branches disagree, they squabble. This is
how the Constitution is designed to work. When the branches disagree, one
option, of course, is for them to meet each other on a compromise. Another
option is to not do anything. Whichever one of those options might be good or
bad as a matter of politics or policy, but the Constitution doesn't require one
or the other.
Ah, but what about "governing?" you say. It's
important to "govern." It's important to "get things done."
Well, rejecting Supreme Court nominees is
governing. You may disagree with the Senate Republican caucus about what
constitutes a bad Supreme Court nominee, and wish that they would consider
confirming Obama's nominees. But that just means that you disagree with the
Senate Republican caucus about who should be on the Supreme Court. This doesn't
mean that the Senate Republican caucus is not "governing."
The Supreme Court can absolutely function with eight
justices, and often has. You don't need the nine justices to activate their
judicial powers. The argument that it would boost the court's legitimacy to
have a seat — and a crucial seat, one that could upset the court's balance —
be, essentially, on the ballot in a general election, is not at all crazy.
Here's the reality of the issue: The Republicans want one
thing, and the Democrats want another. And so they are having a political fight
about it. And because this is an issue on which the stakes are extremely high,
Republicans are willing to fight very hard. And so are Democrats. And so they
are fighting. There's nothing about that that's against the Constitution. In
fact, it's the opposite: It's precisely what the Constitution encourages.
So yes, both sides are playing politics — because it's
their job. Various groups of people in the country have differing views about
the right policies for the country, and so they elect representatives, and
those representatives squabble among themselves. That's what politics is.
If you don't think Antonin Scalia's replacement should be
another Scalia, you're well entitled to that opinion. But having a different
opinion is not a breach of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment