Historian Answers Every GOP Argument on Garland

Historian Answers Every GOP Argument on Garland April 1, 2016

Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote an op-ed in the New York Times trying mightily to make a coherent argument for why the Republicans are right to refuse to even consider the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. Mark Byrnes, professor of history at Wofford College, eviscerates it point by point.

SupremeCourt550x290

He starts by praising the late Antonin Scalia, implying that the rules should be different when replacing one of the “greatest jurists in our nation’s history.” The obvious reply is that it does not matter who the president is replacing. All openings on the Court are created equal.

Obviously so.

Hatch then asserts that Obama has “contempt” for Scalia’s judicial philosophy. That may or may not be true, but in any case, it is irrelevant. When the electorate once again decisively elected Obama as president in 2012, it did not include an asterisk that said he could only replace justices with whom he agreed.

Obvious to everyone but Republicans.

His next point is that when a senator, Obama opposed two of President Bush’s nominees. Again, this is irrelevant. No one is claiming that Hatch or any other Republican has to support Obama’s nominee—just that Judge Garland deserves a hearing and a vote. Republicans now are as free as Obama was then to oppose the confirmation of the nominee.

Quite.

Hatch then moves on to even more absurdly irrelevant points, such as his assertion that Obama has “consistently exceeded the scope of his legitimate constitutional authority.” Putting aside how questionable that point is, what Hatch seems to be suggesting is that if senators think such a thing about a president, the president loses the right to exercise legitimate constitutional powers.

Are you noticing a trend here? All of these arguments are just political boilerplate rhetoric and have nothing to do with the question of whether Garland should be a hearing and a vote.

He then notes that the American people have chosen a Democratic president and Republican Senate. Fair enough. But that in no way leads to Hatch’s conclusion that the Senate can therefore ignore the nomination. What that “split decision” suggests is that the Democratic president should nominate a person who is not his political ideal, but a compromise candidate more acceptable to that Republican Senate. By choosing Merrick Garland, that is precisely what Obama has done. He is respecting the idea of checks and balances, both institutionally and politically. He did not chose someone who was a darling of the Democratic left, but someone who has (in the past) been repeatedly praised by Republicans, including Hatch himself. By refusing to even consider the nominee of the elected president, it is Hatch and the Senate Republicans who are not respecting the “split decision” of the American people, not the president. They are saying that the smaller subset of the American public that elected those Senate Republicans can simply ignore the decision of the entire national electorate in the last presidential election.

A very effective way of turning their own argument around on them.

For an historian, perhaps the most offensive point Hatch makes is this: “Throughout its history, the Senate has never confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy that occurred this late in a term-limited president’s time in office.” As a history teacher, I am used to the instinct unprepared undergraduates have to bolster a poor argument with the “throughout history” trick. I expect better of United States Senators.

Hatch shows his contempt for his readers with this tortured construction. To make his “throughout its history” line work, Hatch needs to make that history awfully short. He does that with the phrase “term-limited.” The 22nd Amendment, which imposes term limits on presidents, has only been in effect for 65 years. So this particular “throughout its history” means for 65 years—less than Hatch’s own life span.

As I pointed out in my previous piece on this subject, there has only been one other vacancy during that period that was “this late” in a president’s term: LBJ’s nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968. Yes, Fortas was not confirmed as Chief Justice. That nomination received a hearing, however, and a vote. It was not met with this disingenuous nonsense that “we never do this.” And as Hatch well knows, 1968 was one of the most contentious elections years in American history. Somehow, the Senate still did its job.

That pretty much takes care of every single argument the Republicans have made. Not that it will matter. Hatch knows damn well that he’s being dishonest to make this case, as do the others making it. They just don’t care. They’re trying to appease their base, which also doesn’t care.

"Or maybe he just blurts out what sounds good, and never gave a 69shit whether ..."

Trump Continues to Lie About Military ..."
"Some congressman is smiling about all the loot hr scammed for his district."

Trump Continues to Lie About Military ..."
"There's a difference between a penalty and a subsidy.Not really, no. It's trivial to rephrase ..."

Beto’s Unconstitutional Answer on Gay Marriage ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment