There are only a few times in the history of the United States when a flaw in our system of government has been thrown into high relief. One such time is now. We rely on our political parties to place the welfare of the country above party, benefit when the two come into conflict. As Republicans used to say, “Country First.”
Sadly, the current Republican Party has revealed its underlying hypocrisy in a way that is now obvious to all. In forcibly changing the previously well-established practice of allowing elected presidents to nominate Supreme Court justices during a presidential election year, Republicans put forward the theory that “the public should decide” during an election year and therefore no Supreme Court nomination should be considered during that sacrosanct period. By denying Judge Merrick Garland even a committee hearing during President Barack Obama’s last year in once, Republicans single-handedly moved the goal posts of government practice.
Now, instead of having to live with the new rule they created in 2016, Republicans have “discovered” that what they really meant was that the new rule should only apply when the Senate and the presidency are held by different political parties. The obvious duplicity of this position is apparent to everyone except the most lock-step Trumpers.
This raises two important questions. Is it in the interest of our country to permit one political party to move the goal posts almost at will? Further, is it a basic assumption of our republic that rules should apply equally to both parties with no exceptions?
The answer to the first question is no. The welfare of our body politic is dependent on acknowledgment that the engine of our government runs on competition between our two major political parties on a fair basis. Whenever one party finds an advantage, using that advantage to an extreme extent results in a backlash from the voters. So, forcing a new Supreme Court justice on the public even though Republicans are numerically a minority party is a treacherous step for Republicans.
The second question is easier to answer. Most Americans, indeed most persons anywhere in the world, understand that a basic measurement of fairness is that the rules, even new rules, must apply equally to all sides of any dispute. Many of us learned this as children in the schoolyard. It is that elemental.
The real question is not whether Republicans have the power to vote on a successor to Justice Ginsburg. They do. But the real question is would it be in the interest of the country and even in the long term interest of the Republican Party to do so.
No. It would not.
Consider. If they go forward with voting on the nomination and Trump wins re-election and Republicans hold the majority in the new Senate, they will have proved themselves to be rapaciously self-obsessed power mongers for no purpose. They would still be able to approve the same nominee and hold on to the moral high ground.
Further, if they go forward and Donald Trump is not re-elected and the new Senate has a Democratic majority, it will be clear that Republicans will have forced a new Supreme Court justice on the people against its will. The public will remember. The Republican Party will have suffered a mortal blow. And, by its duplicity, it will have deserved that fate.
Even more, Democrats will, through their new majority, easily pass laws reversing Citizens United, enacting protection for Roe v. Wade, and improving Obamacare. These laws will almost certainly be impervious to Supreme Court interference. So, no win for Republican issues anyway.
How important is the country and the will of the majority of voters? We are about to find out what the Trump Republicans believe.
John Sucke is a resident of Waimea.
