Understanding the Supreme Court vacancy and the stakes
I keep reading commentary and analysis about what the Democrats should "do" about Trump and McConnell's push to fill the Supreme Court vacancy before the 2020 election. Note the sarcasm-quote around the word, "do." I'll get to that.
And in fact, I'll do that now. First, there's nothing they can do. They don't have the votes. Collins and Murkowski will oppose filling the seat, and they don't matter. Collins is siding with the Democrats because she is in a very tough race, and she is trying to undo the damage of her Kavanaugh support, but McConnell has the votes. Period. Trump will get his appointment. He could name Kushner, Ivanka, Meatloaf, Ted Nugent, Roy Moore, Alex Jones, David Duke... It wouldn't matter.
Most of the commentaries show some understanding of this point, and are based on the idea that the Democrats have some post-appointment response available to them, be that court-packing (about which I have been writing since 2016), expansion of statehood, or whatever. The problem with all of these potential Democratic responses is that they are predicated on the notion that Democrats will be able to gain power after this appointment.
Hence, each of these Democratic responses is based on the same misunderstanding. This appointment is not merely about policy and the ability to control policy through judicial review (i.e., having unelected judges make policy). This appointment is about control of the electoral process.
This is Bush v. Gore. This is about setting up Bush v. Gore, in advance. This is about creating a Judiciary that will side with the Republican Party in electoral challenges, in order to prevent Democrats from winning elections. And if that works, those Democratic responses are off the table. They don't matter. There is no Democratic response.
This is a consolidation, not merely of policy power, but of electoral power.
And in fact, I'll do that now. First, there's nothing they can do. They don't have the votes. Collins and Murkowski will oppose filling the seat, and they don't matter. Collins is siding with the Democrats because she is in a very tough race, and she is trying to undo the damage of her Kavanaugh support, but McConnell has the votes. Period. Trump will get his appointment. He could name Kushner, Ivanka, Meatloaf, Ted Nugent, Roy Moore, Alex Jones, David Duke... It wouldn't matter.
Most of the commentaries show some understanding of this point, and are based on the idea that the Democrats have some post-appointment response available to them, be that court-packing (about which I have been writing since 2016), expansion of statehood, or whatever. The problem with all of these potential Democratic responses is that they are predicated on the notion that Democrats will be able to gain power after this appointment.
Hence, each of these Democratic responses is based on the same misunderstanding. This appointment is not merely about policy and the ability to control policy through judicial review (i.e., having unelected judges make policy). This appointment is about control of the electoral process.
This is Bush v. Gore. This is about setting up Bush v. Gore, in advance. This is about creating a Judiciary that will side with the Republican Party in electoral challenges, in order to prevent Democrats from winning elections. And if that works, those Democratic responses are off the table. They don't matter. There is no Democratic response.
This is a consolidation, not merely of policy power, but of electoral power.
Comments
Post a Comment