The editors of the Wall Street Journal chortle over the prospect of Donald Trump appointing another Supreme Court Justice:
Schadenfreude is overrated, but it is amusing to see Democrats apoplectic that Republicans might confirm a Supreme Court Justice with 51 Senate votes. Let’s review the tape on the Sage of Searchlight, Nevada, because Harry Reid made this moment possible by blowing up the filibuster for judicial nominees.
Democrats are in various stages of grief about the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy but the prevailing mood is rage. Democrats are insisting that the Senate not confirm a replacement until after the November election. The left is still furious that GOP Leader Mitch McConnell barred until after the 2016 election a vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia. They think Mr. McConnell should be “consistent†now.
But that Court opening came amid a presidential election, when Americans decide who will determine the direction of the courts for four years. No less than a quarter of Donald Trump’s voters said their reason was the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton would have had her pick of nominees, and Mr. Garland or a more radical jurist would be on the Court. The real Democratic grievance as ever should be with Mrs. Clinton for losing.
Supreme Court confirmations ahead of a midterm election are routine. The Senate confirmed Justice Elena Kagan in August 2010, Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994, and David Souter a month before midterms in 1990. The Great Scalia was confirmed in September 1986.
If Democrats are unable to stop Republicans from confirming a new Justice, they can also thank Mr. Reid. In 2013 the Democratic Majority Leader changed Senate rules on a party-line vote and ended the filibuster on appellate court and executive nominees. That allowed Democrats to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and win some favorable rulings on Mr. Obama’s regulatory agenda.
I wish that, rather than blaming Republicans, more Democrats would point the finger where it belongs: bad Democratic leadership particularly in the Congress. The list of particulars is enormous including not just Harry Reid’s decision to curtail the filibuster on presidential appointments but the decision to pass major social legislation on a straight party-line vote, an inadequate and politically motivated stimulus package, and enacting the largest tax increase on working people in the history of the republic.. Blame the Democratic leadership, too, both for Hillary Clinton’s nomination and her loss.
These are among the reasons that I consider the Pelosi-Reid Congress the worst of my lifetime. The Democrats have been saved somewhat by bad Republican leadership both on the part of the Boehner-McConnell Congress and then the Ryan-McConnell Congress.
That leadership will ultimately be replaced. Time is not on its side. I hope that Democrats don’t decide to replace it by bringing Chavismo to the United States. It’s been so successful in Venezuela.
“Insurgent Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to take her budding political career all the way to The White House, her mother told The Post on Wednesday.
“Her aspiration is to be the president,†Blanca Ocasio-Cortez, 55, said at the candidate’s childhood home in the Bronx.”
The enthusiasm from Democrats surrounding this self avowed socialist reminds me of Obamas’ reception at the DNC, in what? 2006? If this is the best Dems can come up with, they’ll never win me back.
Nominating Hillary was the worst. If they had chosen almost anyone else Trump loses. Still have an awful Congress.
Steve
Apparently not for four years, but only three. Garland was nominated in March 2016, nearly a year before the end of Obama’s term, and more than enough time for the Senate to consider the nomination. It was strictly a partisan power grab. They did it because they could, breaking long-established norms in the process.