By Noah Rothman
Friday, December 20, 2019
“I will say the same thing that every president has said
since this issue came up,” President Barack Obama told reporters in 2010. “I
don’t have litmus tests around any of these issues.”
The president issued his blanket declaration when asked
if his choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens
should share his support for Roe v. Wade. “I will say that I want
somebody who will be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into
account individual rights,” Obama continued. “And that includes women’s
rights.”
Of course, that admission could be and was correctly
construed as a “litmus test.” But it was nevertheless critical even for a
president whose party enjoyed prohibitive control over the legislative branch
to deny that he wanted to see the nation’s highest court deliver specific
political outcomes.
We have come a long way over the course of this decade.
On Wednesday, when PBS anchor and Democratic debate
moderator Judy Woodruff asked former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg if his
judicial nominating philosophy included any “litmus tests,” he did not
hesitate. “Yes,” Buttigieg affirmed. He added that the majority decision in Roe
was non-negotiable, of course, but he also believes “voting rights are human
rights,” and he expected his judicial nominees to consider future cases with
that determination in mind.
Buttigieg is only the latest Democrat to commit to
appointing justices who will decide the cases before them less on their merits
than in the effort to secure predetermined political outcomes. In this election
cycle, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was the first. “Traditionally,”
Gillibrand wrote, “presidents and presidential candidates haven’t drawn lines
in the sand on judicial appointments, to preserve the impartiality of our
judiciary.” As it turned out, Gillibrand believed that kind of “impartiality”
was a bad thing.
In the months that followed, Gillibrand was joined by
Sens. Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Rep. Seth Moulton, all of whom pledged
only to consider candidates for the judiciary who shared their political
values. Sen. Elizabeth Warren branded her advocacy for prejudiced judges a rare
species of intellectual independence, promising to appoint only “neutral and
fair judges who actually respect the law and cases like Roe instead of
right-wing ideologues bent on rolling back constitutional rights.”
Almost all these Democratic candidates predicate their
embrace of litmus tests on the actions of Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell and his refusal to consider Obama’s final Supreme Court nominee,
Judge Merrick Garland. They contend that Republicans politicized high-court
appointments first, and it would be malpractice if Democrats declined to
respond to that escalation of partisan hostilities. This is a rationalization
that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Like it or not, McConnell’s argument was not that Garland
didn’t evince the right ideological convictions; it was that the U.S. Senate
should withhold its right to advise and consent to Supreme Court nominations
advanced by a “lame-duck president.” Indeed, he cited as precedent the comments
made by none other than former Vice President Joe Biden, who, in 1992, declared
that the Senate should not consider and the president should not name a high
court nominee “until after the November election is completed.” In fact, by
naming Garland, McConnell insisted that Obama served him up only as a martyr
“in order to politicize it for purposes of the election.”
In the political arms race around the Supreme Court,
civic propriety has become the first casualty. But if the legislature declines
to perform its Constitutional role as the sole arbiter of political (as opposed
to legal) questions, it will fall on the Court to act in its stead. Given those
conditions, the overt politicization of the judiciary is inevitable. That
lamentable trend is observable not just in judicial nominations but also in the
unseemly cults of personality that have sprouted up around the Court’s
justices.
The political culture is so far gone that the notion that
Supreme Court nominees’ judicial philosophy should be independent of their
personal politics seems quaint today. It’s hard to remember why there was a
taboo in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment