I want to be the bigger person, I’ve seen the folly of tit for tat, and I know that two wrongs don’t make a right. But, much as I deeply admire the mature folks who can rise above, I’m mad as hell at the grand and galling hypocrisy of the Senate Republicans. They, who wouldn’t even allow a hearing for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, now expect Senate Democrats to take the high road in considering Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick for the high court.
I am fit to be tied because this is a stolen seat. President Obama had the constitutional duty and right as the sitting president to name a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. And the Republicans – if they were doing their jobs – had every right to reject Merrick Garland doing their duty and holding a fair hearing. But they didn’t have the right to humiliate and shun the highly-respected judge, nor to hide behind the low-life, dishonest rationale that because the presidential campaign was underway, there should be no Supreme Court nomination until after the election. This was bald-faced, unprecedented obstructionism even for the group that had declared a strategy of blocking President Obama. Now, it’s ‘do as I say, not as I do’ from the Republicans who are railing against Democrats – some of whom have already pledged to stop Neil Gorsuch, no matter what.
To be clear, this doesn’t have anything to do with Neil Gorsuch, whose legal credentials are drawing praise from the right and left. There are certainly ideological differences, but it seems the Harvard and Oxford-educated judge has a deep bench of supporters. Gorsuch was unanimously approved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. But, then again, Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, also has stellar legal credentials. Garland got overwhelming Senate support when he was nominated for the United States Court of Appeals where he is now Chief Judge. Interestingly, new nominee Neil Gorsuch took note of Garland’s protracted Senate hearing for the Appeals court, writing that Garland was “grossly mistreated” back then by the “partisan bickering.” Denying Merrick Garland a hearing was offensive and wrong. The Senate Judiciary Committee members now crying foul are a day late and dollar short in claiming the moral high ground.
After all is said and done, this is a tough spot for Democrats; there is a long-term cost of fighting fire with fire. And there is a world of trouble to come as there are likely to be other nominations to the highest court in years ahead. Plus, they know the score – they don’t have the numbers to stop a Neil Gorsuch appointment. Voting against him on principle alone not only risks their fragile political capital, but pulls them down into the ditch of political expediency. And, you know what happens when you wrestle with a pig: you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
