While I think it’s wrong to block one justice from getting appointed during an election year and rush another justice’s confirmation the next election year (which is hypocrisy at its finest), I do support Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation and replacement of Ginsburg. Here are some points where I would support each side on the confirmation.
Republicans:
- I could see Barrett’s nomination and potential confirmation as a punishment towards the Democrats for how they treated Kavanaugh. After they filibustered Gorsuch (unwilling to let Scalia, a conservative justice, to be replaced by a conservative), nuked the filibuster for lower court picks, and established a rule where no supreme court justices can be confirmed in an election year, they have been left with a disadvantage where they cannot block any of Trump’s court picks. And when the last moderate justice retired, they have faced their reckoning. They would’ve been civil at Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings and let the vote come through. Instead, they disrupted his hearings, acted like children, and when it was getting close to the vote, they accused him of sexual assault from something that happened a long time ago (and in a time of the #metoo movement). Because this has delayed the vote (and that Kavanaugh was innocent), this has costed the Democrats two seats in the Senate. And now one of the liberal justices is dead. If they didn’t treat Kavanaugh poorly, they would’ve taken back the Senate in 2018 or at least weaken the Republican majority in the Senate, which would make it impossible to replace Ginsburg with Barrett. And had they not filibustered Gorsuch (or even nuked the filibuster earlier), they would’ve had the ability to filibuster Kavanaugh, which would’ve forced Trump to pick a moderate justice.
- While the actions the Republicans did were hypocritical, it is technically fair that they have control of the court and the judiciary. The left wing already has control of the media and education. They can’t have control of exactly everything. Plus, the courts shouldn’t be liberal or conservative. They should be understanding of the constitution. And the problem with most liberal ideologies is that they are unconstitutional.
- In some way, the Republicans were right about letting the voters decide on who gets to be in the Supreme Court back in 2016. I’m not all about overturning Obamacare or Roe v Wade, but I do not want the court to agree with the radical leftist policies that are morally wrong or bad for society in general. For instance, back in 2016, one of my concerns is gendered bathrooms. Had Scalia’s seat been replaced by a liberal, the Supreme Court may overturn gendered bathrooms, meaning that no public businesses, including restaurants and convenience stores, are allowed to separate men and women into different bathrooms. If you identify as a man, you have no reason to use the womens’ restrooms. Another example was the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. Seeing how it actually turned out explains why we shouldn’t have a Supreme Court that stands for oppression or violation of common sense.
Democrats:
- Although their attacks towards any Trump pick are not justified, they have every right and reason to be angry at the Republicans. They wouldn’t let a conservative justice get replaced by a liberal justice, but they wouldn’t mind replacing a liberal justice with a conservative justice. They blocked Garland’s nomination, but they wouldn’t let the Democrats block Gorsuch’s confirmation. Their excuse to block Garland was because it was an election year, but they want to get Barrett confirmed in an election year. They filibustered many of Obama’s picks, but would try to get Trump’s picks through. They shouldn’t take their anger out on Trump’s justices. They should take it out on McConnell and vote to remove him instead of attacking Trump’s picks.
- To nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court picks is a very bad idea. The fact that they put Garland’s nomination on hold to win the election, only to do this, is bad. I already mentioned that this was unfair. But this also a threat to the Constitution. They basically took away the minority party’s right to block justices that may seem unfit, and this move is going to bite them back once they lose control of the Senate and a conservative justice leaves. Granted, we could no longer compromise (which explains why we couldn’t get anything done to solve the pandemic and racial injustice issues), but any revision of the constitution of any kind (i.e. removing term limits for presidents, abolishing the electoral college, removing the filibuster) is a double-edged sword. It may go your way when you have the advantage, but once it goes out of your control, it’s going to hurt you back hard.
- It was actually unfair to block Merrick Garland from getting nominated or even having a voice. Even Susan Collins didn’t like what the Republicans did there. Their excuse is that it’s an election year. If that’s the case, then explain Anthony Kennedy’s nomination. Their real excuse is that they don’t want a liberal replacing a conservative. If that’s the case, then explain Clarence Thomas’s nomination.
Yep, both sides had it wrong on the court. The Republicans are being hypocritical, but the Democrats should learn not to use uncivil tactics to attack a nomination. If Barrett is confirmed, then both sides are to blame.
