RIP, RBG

 

A Sad Day for America

I was devastated when I learned that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away on Friday. A liberal icon, Ginsburg became famous for her brilliant dissents against an increasingly conservative Court. Ironically, she probably accomplished more as a lawyer than she did as a Justice. Ginsburg had a storied career as a lawyer, having argued and won numerous cases in front of the Supreme Court on the cause of women's rights. I highly recommend the 9th episode of the podcast More Perfect, titled Sex Appeal, to anyone who would like to learn more about this phase of her career. 

Unfortunately, it took almost no time at all for her death to become largely a political matter. With the presidential election a mere 2 months away, Ginsburg's sudden death would give Trump the remarkable opportunity to put a third Justice on the Court, something conservatives seem all too happy to do. However, when Antonin Scalia died during the last year of President Obama's term in 2016, Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings or vote on President Obama's appointment, Merrick Garland. Many have pointed out the hypocrisy in Sen. Mitch McConnell's willingness to vote on a Trump nominee in an election year while others are claiming that no such hypocrisy exists.

McConnell is simply following his prior rule from 2016

In a remarkable bit of revisionist history, many conservatives are now claiming that the so called "McConnell rule" that the Senate will not vote on Supreme Court nominees in a presidential election year only applies when the president and the Senate are of different parties. Conservative outlet The Blaze was quick to take up this argument, claiming that the media and Democrats have been misrepresenting the McConnell Rule, with Chris Enloe writing that the last part about only blocking nominees from opposing parties was part of the rule all along. As evidence, he points not to any statements made by McConnell or any other important Republicans in the 2016 fight, instead he cites two tweets. The first is from Mollie Hemingway: 

You can disagree with the McConnell rule, which was previously known as the Biden rule, but you should describe it accurately. It's no confirmations in a presidential election year *when senate and presidency are held by different parties.* Doesn't apply this year.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 19, 2020

The second tweet he cited was from Peter Hasson:

This is inaccurate. The McConnell rule was that when the Senate and White House are held by *different parties* in an election year https://t.co/q8Z4ioITfv

— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) September 18, 2020

Interestingly, neither tweet, nor the article itself point to any single instance of this version of the McConnell rule being stated prior to now.

McConnell is a liar and a hypocrite

Mother Jones takes the opposite view, of course, claiming that the qualification about different parties was never a part of McConnell's rule. They paint McConnell's position in 2016 not as one of principle, but instead as a nakedly partisan power grab. From that perspective, it is easy to see why McConnell is willing to hold a vote in a presidential election year because he never actually believed in what he was saying in 2016, it was just politically convenient to say it. Helpfully Madison Pauly provides evidence in the form of actual comments and released statements from McConnell himself. Pauly points to 5 specific examples where McConnell advocated for not filling a vacancy during a presidential election year, and not once did he claim it only applies when the President and Senate are from different parties. This tweet that shares the statement released by McConnell is a good example:

Full statement from Senate Majority Leader McConnell on Scalia: pic.twitter.com/27VmyVMOy4

— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) February 13, 2016

So this is where we're at so far in the debate over whether it is craven political hypocrisy for the Senate to take up Trump's nomination so close to the presidential election. The truth of it all is that there is no constitutional requirement for the Senate to wait, presidential election or not. That being said, the claims made by some that McConnell was clear about his rule only applying in situations where party rule is split are disingenuous and harm the debate by rewriting history and hiding his dishonesty.