If you read the commentary for Tuesday morning, you know that if Democrats take the Senate and White House, their threats of packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, granting statehood to Puerto Rico and DC, and making other seismic changes will be carried out whether or not President Trump fills the vacant Court seat before the election. So Trump may as well DO IT, and, in fact, intends to. As we reported yesterday, the Senate apparently has the votes. So that part of the discussion is over, or at least should be.
EVERYONE knows that if a Democrat President were in the same position as Trump, with a Democrat Senate to confirm his choice, he’d have his new (activist) justice sworn in faster than you can say “Christine Blasey Ford.” The full Court would be able to start hearing cases in October, hardly missing a beat.
But the double standard applies once again. The media are completely off their meds. The meltdown on CNN and MSNBC was so predictable that there’s no point in even getting into it. Mostly, they’re wrongly equating one situation (the Merrick Garland nomination), in which the President and Senate were of different parties, with another situation, in which the President and Senate are of the same party. But these scenarios are very different, and the anger we see is coming from their blind partisanship and willful ignorance. I’ll do what I hope you do --- ignore it.
Except for one dangerous part of it: They’re encouraging the Democrats to go ahead and “burn it all down": As soon as they gain power, pack the Court to suit the President, destroying checks and balances. (VOX said this might be “the only solution.”) Add states, to gain senators who vote their way. Get rid of the filibuster completely. “Blow up” the Electoral College and choose the President by straight popular vote (gee, why shouldn’t California and a handful of big cities pick the President?). Maybe even impeach the attorney general, for, um, agreeing with Trump too much. Do whatever it takes to hold onto power. The media apparently learned in journalism school that they’re supposed to be the cheering section for all this.
THE FEDERALIST has a great piece on just how far the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) plan to take this.
However, this episode has taken one surprising turn. Under the heading of “even a broken clock is right twice a day,” I have to give credit to Utah Sen. Mitt Romney for seeing the big picture on this issue and putting history and precedent over politics and personal grievance. The LA TIMES wrote that Mitt “made the wrong call,” which means he made the right call. They also left out –- I’m sure deliberately –- the first part of what he said, about the fairness of following the law, so I’ll put that back in:
"My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’...it is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent,” his said. “The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm one of its own.”
Romney went on to say that he would follow the Constitution and vote based on the nominee’s qualifications. Good job, Mitt!
House Republicans had something to say about Court-packing, too. Not that Democrats care.
As reported in POLITICO on Monday, Joe Biden refused to tell a reporter whether or not he would pack the Supreme Court if he won. He weaseled out by saying, “It’s a legitimate question. But let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question: Because it will shift all the focus. That’s what he [Trump] wants.”
"Shift all the focus”? To quote Biden after the passage of Obamacare, “This is a big (bleeping) deal!” The idea of Court-packing is a big deal. Shouldn’t we focus on it right now? If Biden won’t renounce Court-packing, that tells us his party intends to do just that if they get the chance.
This is also one more example of Biden flip-flopping, as he said during the primary race that he “would not get into Court-packing...we’d begin to lose any credibility the Court has at all.”
And so we would. Why can’t he say that now?
Kamala Harris was more forthcoming, in a chilling sort of way. As reported by THE NEW YORK TIMES, she said she was “absolutely open to” packing the Court. Well, of course she is. She and AOC are on the same page, you can bet the farm. (Of course, if they end up in power, they’ll likely take your farm.)
Biden won’t even divulge his own “shortlist” of SCOTUS nominees. Maybe he doesn’t know them or remember their names. But he knows who’s in charge of his party, and he has said he’ll have “the most progressive administration in history.” If you want to see progressive, all you have to do is look at the extremists running New York City, Portland, Seattle and San Francisco. Leftists have way too much power NOW; we’d be crazy to give them more.
Finally, for when you have time, it’s fascinating to look back at what happened when Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to get the House and Senate to pass legislation to help him pack the Court, just so it would rubber-stamp his New Deal programs. Back in 1937, even though these were all Democrats, they reacted with horror at such a power-grab and refused. FDR’s plan flopped spectacularly. If only this were still your great-great-grandfather’s Democrat Party.