Her comments may be inappropriate, however I think most Americans agree with her.
CNN Ginsburg vs Trump
CNN GOP Leaders Critical the Ginsburg
WP How Rare are Her Comments
CNN Ginsburg vs Trump
CNN GOP Leaders Critical the Ginsburg
WP How Rare are Her Comments
19 comments:
As I wrote elsewhere:
Complaints from Republicans about the politicization of the Supreme Court seem awfully hollow when it's they who refuse to take up a lawful Supreme Court nomination for purely political reasons.
--Hiram
I don't know why. Appointments to the Supreme Court have become intensely political, rightly so, since the Court has seen fit to act in a blatantly political manner with Ginsburg often leading the charge. And a major reason for supporting Trump is the idea he may make 2 or 3 SCOTUS appointments in his term, including a replacement for Ginsburg. His list of such was, I think, a turning point in his approval among Republicans.
In terms of politicizing the court, the decline can actually be measured. HBO recently did a docudrama on the Clarence Thomas nomination. It's quite good, and now available on it's streaming service. Thomas' views on the law as we understood them then, were quite objectionable to many Americans, and perhaps a majority of the majority party in the senate. And yet, a Democratic Senate conducted hearings and ultimately voted to confirm now Justice Thomas. Compare that with the present case of Judge Garland. Contrary to the precedent set back then, the majority party today has refused to give Judge Garland a hearing and has refused to give him a vote. This, despite the fact that Judge Garland's views seem far less objectionable to the majority party today than Judge Thomas' views were then.
The difference in the way the two nominations have been treated is a measure of the decline of our republic.
--Hiram
I think you overlook the "high tech lynching" that embodied the political objections of the majority. That, following the "Borking" of the previous nominee, was what created the politicization of the Court, and it can be ascribed most obviously to the majority party of the time. For Democrats to now squeal about politics is rank hypocrisy, and for political advantage. The argument against Bork was the same one that could be used against Garland today, but it is right not to do as Democrats do.
I think you overlook the "high tech lynching" that embodied the political objections of the majority.
You mean the majority that allowed the nomination out of committee permitted and permitted a vote. Really if the majority wants to engage in a high tech lynching of Judge Garland, they are free to go ahead. Certainly, it's the case that I would have wanted to give Judge Garland the same opportunity to answer any charges of the kind that were made against Justice Thomas should someone make them.
I have not problem with Borking Judge Garland. It's a hearing to confirm a lifetime appointment, after all. In these contentious times, it's inevitable that hearings will be contentious, and I am fine with that. It should be noted that Judge Bork's hearings occurred 29 years ago, and that many many justices have been confirmed since then, and that Judge Bork's experience has been far more the exception than the rule.
It's quite clear, Judge Garland is being denied a hearing for political reason and this can be definitively proven by a simple thought experiment. Does anyone think the judge would be denied a hearing if he had been nominated by a president of the same party as the majority in the senate?
--
Is the reason Judge Garland is being denied a hearing that the majority party wants to protect him from being "Borked" or subjected to a "High tech lynching". Do they view him as a hot house flower who must be protected from mean words at all times? My guess is that Judge Garland can take it, or at least through a life time of public service, deserves the opportunity to try. And just between you and me, Republican senators just aren't as scary as perhaps they think they are.
--Hiram
The argument against Bork was the same one that could be used against Garland today, but it is right not to do as Democrats do.
The argument against Bork was that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Connecticut law banning birth control. No candidate since has taken Bork's position on that issue, and presumably Garland wouldn't either. Support for Griswold is a litmus test for the boundary of what's acceptable in a conservative nominee.
--Hiram
SCOTUS appointments are now being made on an ideological and in some cases purely political basis. That they should be opposed on raw political and ideological terms should be understandable, if unfortunate. I was pleased to hear Trump say he would appoint someone like Scalia to the court. That seems an all-sufficient reason to vote for him, frankly.
SCOTUS appointments are now being made on an ideological and in some cases purely political basis.
The claim that Judge Garland shares the ideology of President Obama is not one that is widely made. He is a far more conservative justice than we can expect a President Clinton to appoint. As it is, the constitution certainly doesn't rule out ideology or politics as a basis for a nomination. As it happens, for most of our history, politics has been the chief reason for any given Supreme Court nomination.
As for Trump, despite being extraordinarily litigious throughout his lifetime, his recent comments have demonstrated that he doesn't understand the most basic concepts of law such summary judgment, that he could have gained from the newspapers he refuses to read, or for that matter, what his attorneys would have routinely advised him over the years. This is the guy you want to entrust with nominating Supreme Court justices?
--Hiram
Yep. Since he has provided a list of examples, there's no question his choices would be vastly superior than anybody Hillary or Obama would (or has) appoint.
So should the Democrats, if they take control of the Senate, deny Trump nominee hearings?
==Hiram
I doubt they could keep it up for 5 years, especially having been so insistent that the Senate MUST do so when the Republicans were in charge. But they could. More likely, though, they would figure out ways to "Bork" every nominee Trump sent them, one way or another. They invented the "politics of personal destruction" and seem to delight in using it.
I will say you make a powerful argument for keeping the Senate in Republican hands.
I doubt they could keep it up for 5 years, especially having been so insistent that the Senate MUST do so when the Republicans were in charge
I think it would be fairly easy to do. By breaking the Thomas precedent and setting a new one of their own, Republicans have given Democrats quite the compelling argument for not filling Supreme Court vacancies.
--Hiram
Perhaps you are correct. Democrats never pay a political price for exactly what they make devastatingly politically perilous for Republicans. It takes two parties to "shut down" a government, for example, yet only one takes the blame.
Perhaps you are correct. Democrats never pay a political price for exactly what they make devastatingly politically perilous for Republicans.
Are you suggesting Garland could favor banning birth control and still get confirmed by the senate? Any senate?
--Hiram
If that were the most burning political issue of the time, and if he were on the "right" side of it, AND if the Senate and President were of the same party, quite possibly. None of that is true, of course, in this case.
It's not a burning issue, because all sides have conceded the issue. But it burned enough in the day to stop Bork.
No Supreme Court nominee from presidents of either party have been defeated since Bork so it seems no one is paying a price for their views. And even Bork as controversial he was, was denied neither a hearing or a vote, the precedent Republicans in the senate are now rejecting.
--Hiram
Actually, they are /following/ the precedent set by Joe Biden.
Actually, they are /following/ the precedent set by Joe Biden
Well, yes. Joe Biden was the Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee that considered the Thomas nomination and sent it to the floor despite the fact that it was not approved by the committee, a break with precedent.
Precedents are set by what people say, they are set by what people do.
--Hiram
Post a Comment