I suppose this is a futile reminder, since the Democratic party, prodded by the infantile “resistance” that the party lacked the courage and integrity to tell to shut up and shape up, has been engaged in one tantrum after another since it lost the Presidential election in 2016. In their determination to bake hate, anger and uncontrolled emotion into our once honorable political process, the Democrats have divided the nation, wrecked communities, and quite possibly damaged our democracy beyond repair. It has been opposition by tantrum, from the increasingly personal attacks on the President of the United States, to the contrived Mueller investigation, to the disgraceful impeachment sham. Of course the Democrats’ African American and extremist base would take the cue and expand the tactic into the streets, throwing a series of violent fits over isolated and ambiguous incidents that could be falsely characterized as typical, racist, and criminal.
Today, the metaphorical holding of breath and stamping of feet continued. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced they will boycott Thursday’s markup of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, in protest of Republicans’ decision to move forward with President Donald Trump’s high court pick so close to Election Day. In this they are depending upon the public’s ignorance and amnesia, supported, as usual, by news media spin. What the Republican are doing with the Barrett nomination is exactly what Democrats insisted was the proper process four years ago. It is exactly what Democrats would do if the parties’ circumstances were reversed. It is constitutional and it is legal. Moreover, the nominee, Judge Barrett, acquitted herself with brio under Democratic questioning.
This is not a “we must protest an outrage and injustice” boycott. It’s an “Ooooo, we are just so darn mad that we can’t have our way!” boycott.
How petty and foolish.
The official statement just compounds the disgrace.
“This has been a sham process from the beginning,” the statement by Schumer and fellow Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Chris Coons (Del.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Cory Booker (N.J.) and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris (Calif.) begins.
How is it a sham? The hearings were held, and Democrats had the same opportunity the opposition party always has had to question the nominee, whom many minority members of the Judiciary Committee refused to meet with, violating Senate “norms” of comity, due diligence and fairness. I thought it was President Trump whom Democrats complained didn’t respect “norms”? A party not having the votes to defeat a Presidential nomination doesn’t make the process a “sham.”
The statement’s logic is lame and its words dishonest.
“Republicans broke the promises they made and rules they created when they blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination for eight months under President Obama. Then, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that ‘the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.’”
There was no promise and no rule. What Mitch McConnell said then or says now doesn’t created binding precedent, and the Democrats know that.
Now, Republicans have moved at breakneck speed to jam through this nominee, ignoring her troubling record and unprecedented evasions, and breaking longstanding committee rules to set tomorrow’s vote.”
This is just fantasy, again depending on the public’s ignorance, apathy, and gullibility. Barrett hasn’t had enough time on the appellate court to create a “troubling record.” By troubling, the Democrats mean “not progressive.” Her record shows her to be qualified and competent, and until Democrats changed that norm (with Robert Bork), such a record guaranteed confirmation.
“Throughout the hearings last week, committee Democrats demonstrated the damage a Justice Barrett would do — to health care, reproductive freedoms, the ability to vote, and other core rights that Americans cherish.”
This is an outright lie. “Would do”? There is no way to “demonstrate” how a potential justice will vote on cases yet to exist, and Barrett consistently refused to be drawn into hypotheticals, calling such conduct, correctly, unethical.
“We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway.”
If the process was so illegitimate, why did the Democrats participate in the hearings? The ranking minority of the committee, Feinstein, actually went beyond legitimizing them to call the hearings admirable. Now, the Huffington Post reports, “Democrats are preparing to fill their empty seats with poster-sized photos of people who would be hurt by Barrett potentially casting a deciding vote against the Affordable Care Act.” Hurt by speculative votes by Barrett presuming the votes of the other Justices on hypothetical cases about which neither the facts, nor the legal issues, nor the litigants’ briefs and oral arguments!
In short, a tantrum.