{"id":138952,"date":"2019-05-28T22:11:44","date_gmt":"2019-05-29T04:11:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=138952"},"modified":"2019-05-28T22:11:44","modified_gmt":"2019-05-29T04:11:44","slug":"in-case-there-was-any-doubt-mitch-mcconnell-is-a-partisan-hack","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2019\/05\/28\/in-case-there-was-any-doubt-mitch-mcconnell-is-a-partisan-hack.html","title":{"rendered":"In case there was any doubt, Mitch McConnell is a partisan hack"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 13 February 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died.<\/p>\n

It is a Constitutional power of the President of the United States to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate has not always approved the nominees of the President — though that’s been a very rare thing in the past — but in the case of President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, things didn’t even get that far.<\/p>\n

McConnell never even let Obama’s nominee — a very intentionally selected centrist,\u00a0Merrick Garland — be debated on the Senate floor. McConnell instead presented a brand-new Senate “tradition,” that the President should not be able to select a new SCOTUS justice in an election. No, no, McConnell pontifacted nobly: we should let the\u00a0People<\/em> speak, through that election, so that the\u00a0next<\/em> President gets to make the choice.<\/p>\n

There really wasn’t any such tradition, but any grave and serious straight-faced pundits and ordinary Americans — all of them Republican — defended this stance with a straight face and, in many cases, with a sincere heart. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, with profound national effect, they said. Why not, indeed, why not let the People speak, and then let the winner of their will make that appointment.<\/p>\n

To all of you who made that argument in a sincere and heartfelt fashion: Mitch McConnell just spat in your face and laughed.<\/p>\n

Speaking at a Paducah Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kentucky, McConnell was asked by an attendee, “Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?”<\/p>\n

The leader took a long sip of what appeared to be iced tea before announcing with a smile, “Oh, we’d fill it,” triggering loud laughter from the audience.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, you might say, surely there must be some profound, grand, philosophical, nay, existential reason why McConnell has done a 180 on what he put forward as a deeply respected and utterly essential Senate tradition!<\/p>\n

David Popp, a spokesman for McConnell, said the difference between now and three years ago, when McConnell famously blocked Judge Merrick Garland’s ascension to the Supreme Court, is that at that time the White House was controlled by a Democrat and the Senate by Republicans. This time, both are controlled by the GOP.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I.e., it has nothing to do with “tradition,” or “proper governance,” or “the will of the people.”\u00a0 It comes down to bald partisanship. It comes down to, “Because we can.”<\/p>\n

Please remember that the next time Mitch McConnell makes some appeal to tradition and principle, and tries to talk you into defending his actions on that basis. It’s only party politics for him, and while he’s more than happy to dress it up as something people will defend, he doesn’t believe a word of it, and he’ll leave you with egg on your face and your principled arguments in the dirt.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“But Dave, he’s only doing that because he truly believes that only Republicans should ever be able to nominate justices and judges, because only Republicans are right-thinking and virtuous and truly American!” Fine. Let him say it. Let him be honest and up-front about it. Don’t make excuses. Don’t appeal to “traditions” and “the Voice of the People.” Have the guts to be honest about it.<\/p>\n

“But Dave, we already knew Mitch was a partisan hack. He famously declared his number one goal was to make Obama a one-term president.” Yeah, but he at least he didn’t dress that<\/em> up in principle. He didn’t fool people of his own party into thinking that there some higher morality at work, some principle of better governance, arguing that all<\/em> presidents should only serve a single term. He didn’t then get people to argue the principles of it all on his behalf, and then turn around and smirkingly change his public opinion, leaving others wondering why they had ever believed him.<\/p>\n

Do you want to know more?<\/em><\/p>\n