I realize that polls show the majority of Americans think that filling the Supreme Court vacancy ought to wait until next year. There are respectable arguments for that position.
I've concluded otherwise. After much deliberation, I've concluded that the nomination of an originalist judge - hopefully Amy Coney Barrett - and hearings (if the Senate deems them absolutely necessary; if the nominee's public evisceration in that forum can be avoided, that would be good) and confirmation should occur before Election Day, and let the chips fall where they may.
Mind you, it won't happen in a vacuum, though. Washington Dems as well as radicals on the streets will be at maximum meltdown.
As far as this being some kind of dastardly move, it is no such thing. There's plenty of precedent for this situation (Congress controlled by one party, the White House controlled by the other).
More importantly, there are only two laws covering this situation, both of them in the Constitution. All else is posturing and politics.
Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant jurist and a human being of great depth. She would be excellent. I had hoped Trump would choose her when he went with Kavanaugh instead. She'd be an incredible asset on the Supreme Court.
But, true to his cycle of making one laudable move and ruining it with three or four boneheaded moves, the VSG is sullying what should be a win for conservatism by casting doubt on the election process:
President Donald Trump reiterated Thursday that he may not honor the results should he lose reelection, reaffirming his extraordinary refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power and prompting election and law enforcement authorities nationwide to prepare for an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
Trump escalated his months-long campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Nov. 3 election with a series of comments Wednesday that, taken together and at face value, pose his most substantial threat yet to the nation's history of free and fair elections.
In recent days, the president cast doubt on the integrity of vote totals. He said he might not accept the results if they show him losing to Democratic nominee Joe Biden. He said it was imperative to quickly fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because the nation's high court could determine the winner of the election.
And when asked directly whether he would commit to a "peaceful transition of power," Trump responded, "We're going to have to see what happens." He went on to suggest that authorities "get rid of the ballots," an apparent reference to the huge uptick in votes cast by mail amid the coronavirus pandemic, adding that, if they did, "there won't be a transfer [of power], frankly. There will be a continuation."
Trump reaffirmed his views Thursday, saying on Fox News Radio that he would agree with a Supreme Court ruling that Biden won the election but that short of a court decision, the vote count would amount to "a horror show" because of fraudulent ballots. There is no evidence of widespread fraud.
Later Thursday, as he left the White House for a campaign rally in North Carolina, Trump reiterated to reporters, "We want to make sure the election is honest, and I'm not sure that it can be."
The Left will paint this scenario as Trump being solely motivated by wanting a conservative SCOTUS majority to settle any uncertainty surrounding the election - and they may well be right.
Two things about that:
Barrett, or whoever the nominee is, must make very clear - and this would be one useful thing about hearings - that she or he will not be leaned upon by the VSG or anyone else, and will consult the Constitution and the Constitution only in deciding any matters related to the election
Donald Trump would be wise to shut his damn mouth. But I'm indulging unrealistic hopes here. The VSG never does wise.
No comments:
Post a Comment