Blogger Sandy Changes his Mind! (Well, Mostly…)

But If Trump Does It…We Better Fight Smart!

It started with a friend at church trying to work out the apparent hypocrisy or at least inconsistency between the 2016 situation (Garland) and 2020 (Trump’s pick). He was struggling; I had placed my post up Friday night or Saturday night.

Then I started reading: Various different scenarios; this is different than a year where the President is term-limited; take the chance; no don’t do it – the effort will galvanize the Dems to vote against Trump and GOP senators; etc., etc.

But Bob Shannon placed his comment and that moved me – I do have a lot of respect for Bob – and while I can justify my position as a potentially sound political move – I was really wavering.

There is a media source I trust (even though is a bit more hawkish than I am) and that is the End of Day Report by Gary Bauer.

Bauer’s analysis today was this:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been clear that the president’s nominee will get a floor vote.  Here’s some additional history bolstering the case for why this president and this Senate should fill this vacancy: 

15 times in U.S. history, a Supreme Court vacancy arose in a presidential election year and the president nominated someone that year.

7 of those 15 times, voters had put in place an opposite-party Senate. Only 2 of these 7 nominations were confirmed, the last in 1888.

8 of those 15 times, voters had chosen a Senate majority of the same party as the president. 7 of those 8 nominations were confirmed.

Historical precedent supported the Senate majority’s decision in 2016 and historical precedent supports the Senate majority’s decision in 2020.

So I have decided to change my mind about the matter. Mostly! I still think the position of the GOP this time would be stronger if they had given Judge Garland a hearing and then voted it down. But I know why they did that: Squishy Republicans! “Well, Garland’s is certainly not like Scalia, but he is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court and there is no scandal or any other good reason to vote NO…”

So the only way to be sure is to deny Garland a hearing. Here is the take of National Review and they make a good point:

Garland was doubtlessly disappointed that he came as close as he did to achieving such an honor, only to be denied a hearing. But Senate Republicans were under no obligation to give him one, much less to confirm him. Moreover, Republicans avoided personal attacks on Garland, instead arguing that, because the president and Senate had opposite views on the matter, voters should be given a voice in the kind of justice who would succeed Scalia. Ultimately, Garland was not a satisfactory pick to a majority of senators, so he was not elevated. Compared to how Republican judicial nominees have been treated for the past several decades, Garland’s treatment was positively heartwarming.

Here is NR’s take on the history of nominations and I find it compelling. It is as much an indictment of our full-time Congress (I’d try to get rid of it if I ran for Congress) as evidence of hypocrisy on SCOTUS nominations:

It is, however, true that none of the nominees confirmed before the election passed the Senate later than mid-July. Why? Mostly because the Senate was out of session. It was once common for the Senate to be out of session for much of the summer and fall.

There’s a cause for someone: Get Congress home by July 4, if not Memorial Day! The Republic would be better off.

Thank you, Bob Shannon and National Review and Gary Bauer!

But if we fight, let’s fight smart! Get the pick selected and then fight to keep the Senate and the Presidency. 2020 is NOT 2016. Fill the Seat!