Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Republicans Should Have Said (But Won’t) About Obama’s SCOTUS Nomination
In politics, providing a reason for doing what you do is almost as important as doing the thing. Instead of the lame, inside-baseball “We just don’t confirm Supreme Court Justices in an election year” justification Republicans have offered, here’s how they should have clarified their opposition:
We cannot, and will not, confirm any justice to the Supreme Court whose vote would imperil important constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms and the right to freely practice and exercise religion.
This would have clarified why Obama’s nominees need to be opposed in a manner that reaffirms commitment to constitutional principles and resonates with key constituencies of the Republican base. And if Judge Merrick Garland passes this test, then maybe there’s something worth talking about.
But, instead, they will probably just stick with the original line that makes them look like a bunch of yammering, out-of-touch, politicians.
Could the Senate give him a hearing without necessarily holding an actually vote? That would allow the opportunity to publicly ask him very simple questions, like:
“With the exception of regulating direct contributions to political candidates, Do you believe that the government ever has a justification under the Constitution to regulate or restrict political speech or advocacy at any time by anyone, including issue advertising?”
If he couldn’t answer with a simple “No,” that would be an effective demonstration of his disqualification for the job.
Good point V.
Ever since Bork nominations have been all about ideology.
Republicans in the Senate need to cowboy up and stand for our Constitutional rights.
Have you sent this suggestion to Chuck Grassley?
All the talk about letting the next president have the selection should immediately stop.
The Republicans should dig in and insist that no justice will be seated until one that can be trusted to respect the Constitution is nominated. If we get President Hillary, just leave the Court with eight members. If there is a new vacancy, leave the Court with seven members.
No problem.
When he lies and says “No,” then you’re stuck having to confirm.
No, don’t get into substance, don’t consider it, don’t turn it over in discussions, don’t play with it, just shut it out of your collective minds. Anything other than “no” will just feed the media and we know what happens to Republican spines when the media gets loud about something. The way to deal with Scalia’s replacement is to win the election.
I’ve never understood why the Republicans don’t hire a public relations firm, strategy or communications director worth some salt. The party has an obvious public persona problem and rarely handles situations (such as the nomination announcement) well.
Your solution is well thought out and would have been much better received. Additionally, the party has had at least a month now to work on strategy should the president choose a particular judge for the nomination. Why are they never ready to play ball when they need to?
I agree with the OP, but the Republicans have announced their position, and changing the rationale now would make them look like liars, and weak liars at that.
That said, I don’t see any path for the GOP to win the White House in November. Trump has burned that bridge already. Either Trump will be the nominee and get crushed by Hillary, or a real candidate will be the nominee and Trump will throw the election to Hillary by (a) running third party; or (b) encouraging his supporters to stay home. (Or to riot in the streets.)
There is a very real chance that Trump will cost us the Senate as well. The path is being paved for Hillary to appoint an extreme leftist ideologue. I’m beginning to think that confirming a moderate Obama nominee now would be preferable to the extremist we will get from Hillary.
Yes, unfortunately I think a sensible, principled position like that in the OP would provide opportunities for weak Republicans who would be inclined to break on principle, and I think McConnell knew this from the beginning.
So I think “Because No” is probably our best shot at holding out the longest.
Yes, that was the best way. It is looking less and less probable that Cruz can win. I agree, with the original post if we are going to lose anyway we might as well stand on principle. Tactical considerations are for when a war is winnable. It’s time to reestablish long term messaging. That being said I think they should hold their tongues until Cruz is really eliminated.
Yes, I have to disagree with the OP, at least if this is meant as a strategy to win the PR battle beyond making the conservative base temporarily happy (and then very angry once it fails).
The media of course would spin any substantive arguments against us, and even if they didn’t, the unfortunate reality is that the average person doesn’t understand or care much about constitutionality.
If we have to say anything beyond “no”, the only winning path is to emphasize the process and how since it’s so close to the election, the people should have a say. Once you start talking about specific policy positions, the focus moves entirely to the actual person being nominated. We lose on that, because Garland just won’t seem that objectionable to the majority of people.
I don’t think so, because SC justices usually just vote up or down on a case. Plaintiff wins, defendant wins. There usually isn’t an opportunity for the “moderateness”of a given judge to have an actual real world effect. So unless he ends up voting with the conservatives on some important cases, then what difference does it make how moderate he is?
Although Roberts and Kennedy are generally conservative, Kennedy’s moderateness made a difference on SSM, and Roberts’ moderateness made a difference on Obamacare. I consider those to be actual, real world effects. Republican Presidents sometimes appoint moderates. Democrats appoint extreme ideologues. And yeah, it makes a difference.
Yes, the RNC is dysfunctional, at best. And now I have ironclad proof of that!
My server has two levels of spam protection, basically bothersome and potentially dangerous, and it sends me a daily message summarizing what it has flagged. Political emails almost always fall into the bothersome category. This morning, the latest salvo from the RNC landed in the dangerous category! Perfect.
Republicans are really stupid at how they handle hearings. They should try to get this information, but not in hearings.
Bob Wainwright
“I don’t think so, because SC justices usually just vote up or down on a case. Plaintiff wins, defendant wins. There usually isn’t an opportunity for the “moderateness”of a given judge to have an actual real world effect. So unless he ends up voting with the conservatives on some important cases, then what difference does it make how moderate he is?”
A justice also gets to write an opinion, in which he can be extreme or moderate. I think of Roberts in the Obamacare cases, going along with the commerce clause argument but going the other way on the tax argument. In other words, the rationale for the decision also matters.
Excellent, excellent point. Republicans should never discuss strategies and tactics in public, because that’s what the news media will report to make them sound like the cynical politicians they are. Democrats can get by with it, because the media will present them as having issues, priorities, and concerns. Republicans never have concerns, only tactics, but that’s partly their own fault because they feed the media narrative.
I agree but I would add the term natural rights in there somewhere. The Constitution was written to protect the natural rights of citizens. It has no other purpose. We cannot confirm judges which seek to take away those rights.
Might be best to leave out the term “natural” and “constitutional” if you don’t want to come across as a cult member. Just say “human rights” and you can argue later about where our rights come from.
Or, how about this? How about Republicans explain that the purpose of the courts is a defining distinction between Republicans and Democrats? And that elections have consequences.
Republicans believe judges and justices are to apply the law, properly understood from the text, regardless of race, color, creed, or social standing. Lady Justice is blind.
Democrats believe the courts are to “give voice to the voiceless,” power to the powerless — to commit acts of social justice by the arbitrary interpretation of the law by a preferred judge or justice. They elect and nominate people they trust to make those decisions in a manner to their liking.
That’s the difference. That’s why we’d prefer to wait until Americans have chosen a decider. Will it be the American way in the courts — or will we be subjects under the arbitrary rule of unelected men and women? The people should decide once and for all.
Those are all good points that need to be made.
I like the direction of your suggestion but would add some specificity for a general audience, using any of these:
“We will only support a nominee who believes that every American should be free to criticize any politician, of any party, unlike the liberal judges who voted to ban a video critical of Hillary Clinton.”
“We will only support a nominee who believes the Constitution forbids a person’s home from being seized by the government against their will and given to a large corporation, unlike the liberal judges who decided that sounded perfectly fine to them.”
“We will only support a nominee who believes the Constitution forbids the federal government from prosecuting a cancer-stricken woman who, in full compliance with her state’s law, grew her own medication to help her pain, unlike the liberal judges who decided it’s OK if the government sends her to jail.”
“We will only support a nominee who believes every citizen, in every neighborhood in America, has the right to defend themselves, unlike the liberal judges who think it’s OK if they are left unable to defend themselves and their families.”
“We will only support a nominee who believes that the Little Sisters of the Poor, whose charitable work helps those most in need in our society, should not have to face a choice of violating their religious conscience or stopping their aid to the needy, unlike the Obama Administration which seeks to bend them to the government’s will.”
That’s excellent, and you’re right that concrete examples are important. Good point.
Now this is an interesting turn of events:
http://ricochet.com/scalia-passes-game-set-match-obama-wins/
Oh. Lordy; I barely recall this point. I have not heard anyone say this in the past two weeks.
You may be right. We need to hear from our legal team at Ricochet.
Does the Senate have to stay constantly in session in order to deny Obama a recess appointment?