By DAVID HARSANYI
The only rules Mitch McConnell needs are in the Constitution.
Republicans have every right to fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Please save your irate emails accusing me of hypocrisy, because I have never believed or advocated for the “Biden Rule” or the “McConnell Rule” or any other fantastical “rule” regulating the confirmation process, other than the prescribed constitutional method.
In March 2016, in the heat of the Merrick Garland debate, I argued that “the Republicans’ claim that the ‘people’ should decide the nominee is kind of a silly formulation,” and the best argument for denying Barack Obama another seat on the court was to stop him from transforming it into a post-constitutional institution that displaces law with “empathy” and ever-changing progressive conceptions of justice.
For a decade, the conventional wisdom said that the GOP’s “obstructionism” — by which liberals meant completely legitimate governance that didn’t acquiesce to Obama’s wishes — was going to sink the party. Conventional wisdom was wrong in the elections held during the Obama presidency. It was wrong in 2016.
The Garland debate did not sink Republicans, who held the Senate and won the presidency. In fact, one of the central promises the GOP relied on to procure those victories — especially among Evangelical voters — was that they would nominate and confirm originalist justices to the Supreme Court. If Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell end up installing replacements for Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg . . . well, “but Gorsuch,” indeed.
McConnell had no constitutional obligation to take up Obama’s Garland nomination in 2016, and he has no obligation to wait for 2021 to vote on the next appointment. There is no constitutional crisis. There is only now a faction of left-wing partisans who are threatening to weaken and pack courts because they didn’t get their way.
Guess what? It was the Democrats who demanded that the GOP ignore the “Biden rule” when it wasn’t convenient for them. It was Democrats who blew up the judicial filibuster. It was Democrats who argued that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to have any nominees. It was Chuck Schumer who argued that Democrats should “reverse the presumption of confirmation” for now-beloved George W. Bush in his second term. It was Democrats who engaged in an authoritarian-style witch-hunt against Brett Kavanaugh in an effort to delegitimize the court. Democrats care about as much about precedents as do “liberal” Supreme Court justices.
Now, I don’t think a single person in American politics actually cares about the “Biden rule,” either. Even if they did, however, the precedent doesn’t apply in this case. Biden argued that nominations shouldn’t be taken up during presidential-election years when Senate and presidency are held by different parties. Trump isn’t a lame-duck president; he’s running for reelection. But let’s concede for the sake of argument that McConnell is a massive hypocrite. Then, it’s fair to say, so are all the pols who accused McConnell “stealing” the Garland seat.
@July 4th American, #47:
Articles of impeachment against Nixon were approved by the The House Judiciary Committee and sent to the full house for a vote. Realizing that there was no question about the outcome, Nixon resigned from office before a vote could be taken. If you want to believe Nixon wasn’t impeached owing to the technicality of no final vote being taken, fine. In effect, however, Nixon was the only U.S. president to actually be removed from office as a result of the impeachment process.
I remember the main events of Nixon’s impeachment from watching them as they unfolded. The investigations went on for months. Formal impeachment hearings were reported on the nightly news for 2 months. Denying his impeachment based on the technicality that he got out of Dodge before the law arrived is a bit like denying the reality of over 200,000 U.S. COVID-19 deaths based on the technicality of contributing factors being included on the death certificates.
@July 4th American:
The celebration might end once all election results were in.
A threat of impeachment does not meet the constitutional standard of impeachment. You truly do have the IQ of a crayola crayon.
@Greg:
No he wasn’t. The term is intended to prove some kind of guilt that can later be used as political fodder. A sham impeachment was brought against Trump, and he was acquitted.
Words matter. The Democrats attempted to “Impeach” Trump, but failed. You can say he was “impeached”, but what you mean is he was “indicted”.
Same with Clinton. Funny how you Leftwingers argued the same thing, when Conservatives used to say Clinton was “impeached”.
DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT IMPEACHED.
Nancy Pelosi, however, was caught on camera breaking the rules she accused Trump of breaking (strangely without any evidence or cause, like the “impeachment”).
@July 4th American: He’s just following Nancy on this, i.e. “Impeached for—everrrr”
LOL. That’s not an accomplishment, trying to upend our democracy with soviet-style kangaroo courts.
Time to vote them all out.
@July 4th American, #53:
We all have our own opinions, don’t we? Mine is that you’re retard05’s bulldyke sock puppet persona. Maybe I’m wrong. It might only be the incessant personal insults that create that impression. It might just be that many Trump supporters are rude little bastards, like their idol. It’s one of the things courteous people have come to hate about him.
I think I have better things to do than this.
greg just admitted he was wrong about Nixon being impeached.
As far as insults go, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone can hit the target. Go back to bed zipperhead.
If you want words to matter, Trump actually was impeached. A full vote was taken in the House and Articles of Impeachment were formally adopted.
But that was not the case for Nixon.
@Greg:
No he wasn’t. Articles of impeachment are just that, and not an “Impeachment”, which means they were filed and the President removed from office.
Hey, maybe Democrats should try winning an election? That would “remove” Trump, you know.
@Greg: @Nathan Blue:
However, there was never a full house vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. While not a Constitutional requirement, it was and had been customary is the previous two impeachment proceedings.
That is correct greg, with the IQ of a Crayola crayon, there had been only two House impeachment’s in US history prior to the last Sham effort by pelosi and schiff, Richard Nixon was never impeached.
@Greg:
You mean, if we want to believe Nixon wasn’t impeached because he wasn’t impeached, that’s OK with you? Gee…. thanks.
You really think Pelosi will try to impeach Trump for fulfilling his Constitutional obligation?
Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Trump was impeached, by definition. Articles of Impeachment were adopted as a result of a full vote by the House of Representatives. That was the impeachment. The fact that he was formally charged by the House of Representatives with high crimes and misdemeanors does not disappear just because he wiggled out of a conviction.
The Articles of Impeachment were then forwarded to the Senate for a trial, where constitutionally required Oaths of Affirmation were to render impartial judgement were taken and then blatantly broken. There’s nothing remotely impartial about a trial where the foreman of the jury announces what the verdict will be before the trial is conducted. Mitch McConnell did nothing less than that.
Another impeachment would undoubtedly produce the same result, but that doesn’t mean the exercise won’t be repeated. House Democrats may decide to make McConnell perform some variation of what he did before, just so voters can have a really close second look at it before the general election.
Why speculate, when we’ll soon know for certain? What I think is that Pelosi will carefully consider what will allow republicans to inflict the greatest possible political damage on themselves. She will then happily assist them in that.
@Greg:
Seeding “speculation”, such as “more Biden voters will vote by mail..and those votes will miraculously come in a week after election day..and Trump will then lose when he thought he won, and not give up his office”, is what leftwingers do best these days.
Pelosi has no right, or basis, for another impeachment. When Trump wins, I “speculate” that charges of treason will be entertained for those like Pelosi working outside of the law and actively working towards a perpetual coup.
@Greg:
He didn’t wiggle out of anything; there was no evidence of any impeachable crime; it happened simply because the Constitution-hating Democrats had enough votes to pass it. Biden committed the crime, not Trump.
So, you admit it is within Pelosi’s scummy motivations to impeach Trump simply for doing something she doesn’t like; no crime, no impeachable offense, simply fulfilling his Constitutional duty against her will. Well, at least we have that on record.
Trump will either have another Supreme Court justice or have many, many Democrats on record viciously attacking a woman with lies and false accusations. Not a good position to be in. Enjoy.
Breaking news. Apparently mitt (Pierre delecto) has made it public he is in support of moving forward with the nomination, hearing and confirmation process for the vacant Supreme Court open seat.
@July 4th American: Pierre wants a new Judge?
Link please
@rodney stanton:
My eyes read it; but my brain says i have “lying eyes”.
Thank you!
We win if he is honest!
I guess being a traitor to the nation doesn’t pay as well as he thought.