Oh, Democrats, you poor, dear Democrats:
Last March, your then-President Barack Obama tried appeasing the Republican majorities in Congress by nominating Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February.
Garland was a centrist pick, a politically moderate white guy who, at 63, was the oldest judge on Obama’s reported short list for the lifetime appointment on the nine-member panel. The choice was tailored to appeal to Republicans in the Senate majority, many of whom had already declared that Scalia’s seat should remain open so that the winner of November’s presidential election could fill it.
In particular, Obama was hoping to win the support of such institutionally minded Republican senators as Orrin Hatch of Utah, who had previously said Garland would be "a consensus nominee" who would unquestionably be confirmed to the high court.
The choice was not tailored to appeal to the Democratic base, which was more energized by the idea of such prospective justices as U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, either of whom would have been the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court, or such known civil rights warriors as federal judges Robert Wilkins or Jane Kelly.
And how did that work out for you?
The Republican senators held firm. Even when their presidential candidate, Donald Trump, was well behind in the polls and it looked as though Democrat Hillary Clinton was going to be able to name Scalia’s replacement, the GOP refused even to give Garland a hearing on Capitol Hill.
Even though the brazen partisan obstructionism shattered the norms of Supreme Court appointments, Democratic voters largely shrugged it off. Perhaps it was because they weren’t all that enthusiastic about Garland. Perhaps they were lulled by confidence that voters would reject Trump. Or perhaps, unlike many voters on the right, they still don’t appreciate how important the U.S. Supreme Court is in determining the direction of the country.
Democrats hardly blinked, when, just before the election, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Ted Cruz of Texas and Richard Burr of North Carolina preemptively floated the idea that, assuming Clinton’s victory, their party should put a brick on any nominee she put forward.
Cruz argued that there’s a historical precedent for fewer than nine justices on the Supreme Court. Burr said to Republican volunteers that if Clinton is elected, "I am going to do everything I can do to make sure, four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."
Others, like Florida’s Marco Rubio, indicated they’d block any Clinton nominee who didn’t share their highly conservative view of the Constitution.
And how did this tactic work out?
Where has this attempted appeasement, this reach across the aisle, left you?
In the wilderness.
Populist carnival barker Trump pulled off the upset, in part because your voters weren’t particularly outraged or concerned by the shafting of Merrick Garland, and in part because socially conservative voters held their noses and voted for Trump because they believed he’d appoint strongly conservative judges to the Supreme Court.
Now you’re looking at Trump’s appointee, Neil Gorsuch, a 49-year-old conservative federal judge whom some analysts believe will be even further to the right than Scalia was.
The Republicans went low when they obstructed the Garland nomination. Now they, along with some in your party are urging Democrats to go high — to give Gorsuch a fair and open-minded hearing and a confirmation vote based on his qualifications, and to thereby give Trump the deference to which the president is due.
The conciliatory caucus is urging Democrats not to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination, a move that would require at least eight Democrats or independents to agree to give him an up-or-down vote on the floor.
And how do you think that tactic is going to work out?
Do you think that rolling over and showing your belly to President Trump will prompt him or the Republican majorities to compromise with you? To gratefully moderate their agenda in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation?
Please.
The GOP will, quite rightly, see your capitulation as weakness and naivete of the sort that prompted Obama to blink first in some of his confrontations with them.
And your base — those who remain infuriated by the theft of the seat that rightfully belongs to Garland — will be demoralized.
If you try to obstruct the Gorsuch nomination under current rules, will the Republican leadership in the Senate "go nuclear" and get rid of the 60-vote requirement for a Supreme Court appointment?
That’s the fear of the feckless hand wringers now pleading for us all to just get along.
If this exercise in getting your faces ground in the mud has taught you anything, it’s that you’re not going to stop them from getting rid of the filibuster whenever it suits them. And that you might as well start fighting like hell today, when Trump’s popularity is low and his leadership skills are in serious doubt.
Obstruct Gorsuch, not on the merits but on principle. You may not be able to even the score, but you will be able to show the public that the days of Democratic obsequiousness are over.
Don’t ask any questions at his hearing in order to dramatize the GOP’s failure to give Garland a hearing. And do provide to the White House a list of moderate Republican judges whom you consider acceptable replacements for Gorsuch.
They’ll probably ignore you and probably lose. But you’ll have your self-respect back.
@EricZorn
Related articles:
How to judge Judge Gorsuch
Can anyone stop Steve Bannon’s power grab?
Self-defeating violence at Berkeley
Are we really stuck with President Donald Trump?
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.