By Noah Rothman
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
It has become fashionable in recent years to be
fatalistic. For the sophisticated fatalist, the nation is forever teetering on
the brink of epochal disaster. It is no coincidence that decline and even
dissolution are, for this sort, always a product of our politics, and our
politics are always the remedy.
So we’ve heard: The very character of the nation will
be forever changed for the worse if Barack Obama implements his version of health-care
reform. And: If elected, Hillary Clinton will criminalize gun ownership and
dramatically curtail religious liberties. And: Unless Republicans suffer for
rallying around Donald Trump, the GOP and the levers of power they control will
be delivered irretrievably into the hands of an authoritarian menace. And so
on.
Zoom out from the political battles of the day, and
you see something much less apocalyptic: Americans responding to political
incentives and punishing those actions they see as radical revisions to the
status quo. Democrats overreach, and they’re forced out of power. Republicans
govern with contempt for consensus and civility, and they, too, are rebuked.
Yes, partisans are becoming more partisan. Yes, Americans are self-sorting into
politically homogenous camps. The two parties are less constrained by the
institutions they control, and they are increasingly beholden to their
respective fringes. But voters tell a consistent story about the United States:
We do incrementalism here, not radicalism.
And now we are thrust into another existential debate,
this time over whether the president can appoint and the Senate can confirm a
new justice to the United States Supreme Court just weeks before an election—an
election in which the incumbent is the underdog. Once again, the end times are
upon us. Egged on by irresponsible pundits, our perpetually exercised, excessively
online partisans are promising street action if they don’t get what they want.
Democrats are pledging to shatter the political system, and media outlets are
exploring their options. Everything is on the table, from eliminating minority
privileges in the Senate to adding two new, presumably dark blue states to the
Union. The most tempting of the extraordinary measures on the menu seems to be
“packing” the Supreme Court with new, hand-picked liberal justices so that it
becomes an instrument of Democratic political utility.
To forestall this outcome, some have advocated a
compromise. The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg and David French envision a grand bargain in which Republicans postpone the nomination
process in exchange for guarantees from Democrats that they won’t “vote for a
court-packing scheme.” Writing in the Washington
Post, George Will agrees. The idea is that a Republican push to
install a new justice on the Court now would sap the institution of legitimacy
and pave the way for the purely punitive expansion of the bench.
The threats Democrats have issued are, indeed,
intimidating. At least in theory. But those advocating these compromises are
failing to take into account the equilibrium enforced by the electorate. What
Republicans appear primed to do here is, by and large, normal. The response
Democrats are promising is most certainly not.
Would it be a display of hard elbows to confirm a new
justice this late into a presidential election year? It would. Is it a reckless
abuse of power? In no conceivable way. The nation’s founding charter describes
the procedural approach to a vacancy on the high court. And for the third time
in four years, that process, which is controlled by Republicans, is being
adhered to.
Democrats have responded to these relatively
conventional circumstances by taking themselves hostage.
They swear that once they are in power they will
execute a radical revision of the civic covenant. For explicitly utilitarian
purposes, they would neutralize the Republican advantage on the Court by
expending hard-won political capital in pursuit of an epoch-altering
outcome—court-packing—on which no Democratic office-seeker is currently
campaigning. Such a course of action, which is only possible if Democrats
secure every lever of power in Washington, would derail a Biden presidency,
deprioritize more consequential legislative reforms, invite a backlash from
voters who detest naked power grabs, and sacrifice the swing-state Democrats
who delivered their party into a new period of ascendancy.
The course of action on which Republicans seem set
relating to the vacancy is only likely to exacerbate the conditions that have
led voters (if polls are to be believed) to conclude that the GOP is deserving
of censure. But that is a cumulative result. It took several years of effort
for the Republican Party to turn off as many voters as it has. By contrast,
what Democrats are talking themselves into would accomplish something similar
in a single bound. What’s more, Democrats have been talking themselves into it
for several years, and they would still be doing so even if Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg were alive today.
There is no justification, ethical or political, for
Republicans to legitimize these tactics by treating them as though they were an
appropriate response to the exercise of enumerated constitutional prerogatives.
Republicans did not antagonize Democrats into this position, and Republicans
cannot appease Democrats out of it. And if they were to act on these threats,
it would be Democrats who would have radically altered the terms of political
engagement and to their own detriment.
Republicans should call their bluff.
No comments:
Post a Comment