Dear America,
Now that Katanji Brown Jackson has been confirmed to the Supreme Court seat for which she was nominated by our Democratic president, it seems eminently appropriate to comment on the Republican performance during the confirmation process. But first, a little history. Chief Justice Rhenquist was confirmed on June 20, 1986 on a vote of 65 to 33, and he was hardly any Democrat's dream candidate. Scalia was confirmed four days later 98 to 0, and I need not repeat myself regarding Democratic preferences in his regard. In 1987, Robert Bork was rejected by a vote of 42 to 48, and while I can't say out of personal knowledge, it is pretty safe to say that that vote was bipartisan, though surprisingly ten senators seem to have abstained. Kennedy, who took the seat intended by Reagan for Bork, was confirmed 97 to 0, and Souter, the elder Bush's first nominee, was confirmed 90 to 0. Then came Clarence Thomas in 1991.
Thomas was confirmed 52 to 48, suggesting that there were a lot of reservations about him, and I think his performance over the decades has justified them. But for me--and I listened to almost all of the hearings--he wasn't a fit candidate...not because he thought that gross sexual innuendo was the appropriate way in which to woo a woman (I'm no expert when it comes to wooing either), but because he was asked about whether he had ever discussed Roe vs. Wade when he was at Yale. It is important to remember that Roe was decided on January 22, 1993 and Thomas didn't graduate until the spring of 1994. Everyone was talking about Roe vs. Wade. It changed American society at the level of fundamental principles of law. And granted, Thomas may not have had any friends or anyone to talk to given his personality, but it is unlikely that he didn't discuss Roe with ANYONE AT ALL. Thus, it was clear to me as of those hearings that Thomas is a liar, and his denial of the Anita Hill conversations was just additional proof of the fact. In summary then, there was plenty of reason not to vote for Thomas, so like Bork, the lack of inter-party comity is understandable.
But next came Ginsburg in 1993: Clinton's first nominee. As had been the case in the past, with the exceptions of Bork and Thomas, the decision to confirm was overwhelmingly bi-partisan...96 to 3...despite the fact that she was certainly not any Republican's dream justice. Same with Breyer: 87 to 9, and Roberts, though there were more than twice as many presumably Democrat nays for him as Republican nays for Breyer, W's first pick, followed by Alito, who got twice as many nays again as did Roberts, but still at least a technical bi-partisan choice. Then came Obama's two picks, Sotomayor and Kagan, both of whom got fair bipartisan support, but following them came Merrick Garland, and he was the death knell of bipartisanship in the confirmation process. Garland was nominated during Obama's last year as president, and Mitch McConnell, then the majority leader of The Senate, refused to give Garland so much as a hearing on the pretext that the voters should speak as to the appointer, that is the president, who's election would occur in November of that year, before another nominee was considered. Well, the voters picked Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump became the appointer in chief thanks to Alexander Hamilton's practical joke on democracy, the electoral college. And the rest--the Democratic retaliation with Gorsuch (51-49, Cavanaugh (51-49) and Coney-Barrett (52-48)--is history. Bipartisanship is officially dead, which is significant for Jackson's appointment only in that the degree of casuistry has now been elevated to the point of absurdity by Republicans like Cruz, Graham and Hawley, which brings me to my point.
The Republicans have demonstrated a shamelessness worthy of the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen. Their contrived, erstwhile eristic caviling with Jackson over the issue of her sentencing of child pornography possessors...not creators but possessors...in line with that of federal judges everywhere was the only issue they could seize upon, despite the fact that the record on the issue of any other federal judge nominated would have been the same was captious and a stain on any claim of integrity that Republicans might have had left. Neither Justice Jackson, nor I for that matter, condone consumption of child porn, but everyone is appalled by sexual assault, which Brett Kavanaugh was proven to have engaged in, as well as lying to senate committees as Clarence Thomas did. And as to Kavanaugh, Lyndsey Graham's flamboyant histrionics not only in defense of Kavanaugh but now over Jackson as well, demonstrate only one thing: he goes to bed every night with some sort of lie in his teeth.
The Republicans are a stain on our democracy. I reiterate: we should eliminate the party designations Democrat and Republican in favor of Liberal for the Democrats and...I don't know what for the other guys.
Your friend
Mike
Leave a comment