Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould Democrats Bother Fighting Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation? History Suggests Yes
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/should-democrats-bother-fighting-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation-history-suggests-yesShould Democrats Bother Fighting Brett Kavanaughs Confirmation? History Suggests Yes
By Jeffrey Toobin
5:00 A.M.
Brett Kavanaughs long paper trail, both as a judge and as a Republican political appointee, gives Democrats a great deal of material to exploit.
Bad news for Donald Trump has been good news for Brett Kavanaugh. The past several weeks have been among the most tumultuous of Trumps Presidencywith a widely panned European tour and summit with Vladimir Putin, and a series of embarrassing disclosures from Trumps onetime lawyer Michael Cohen. The unfolding scandals have had the effect of pushing Kavanaugh, Trumps nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, to an afterthought in news coverage. The near-blackout on Kavanaugh has stalled any political momentum against his nomination. How can Kavanaugh be defeated if no one is paying attention to him? For the judge and putative Justice, no news is good news.
Kavanaughs smooth ride so far has raised the question of whether its even worthwhile for Democrats and liberals to fight his nomination. Trump selected Kavanaugh from a list of prospective nominees assembled by the right-wing Federalist Society. If the Senate rejected Kavanaugh, the President would surely just turn to the next person on the Federalists list, who may be even more conservative than Kavanaugh. In light of that possibility, one theory goes, shouldnt Democrats surrender and allow Kavanaugh to take his seat on the Court?
Such an approach would be wrong politically and unsound historically. Theres a reason that conservatives talk about their judicial agenda in abstractions rather than in specifics. Its hard to quarrel with (or even to understand) what they mean when they say that they favor judicial restraint or judges who interpret the law rather than legislate from the bench. But the practical meaning of those vague terms is actually very clear. It means overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to ban abortion. It means interpreting the Affordable Care Act to allow insurance companies to exclude protections for preëxisting conditions. (The Trump Administration is backing a lawsuit to do just that.) Substantial majorities of the public support both Roe v. Wade and the preëxisting-condition protections. During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised that he would appoint Justices who would vote to overturn Roe, and there is every reason to believe that Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, Trumps first appointee to the Court, would do sobased on their records and on the fact that they were on the Federalist Societys list. Likewise, Kavanaughs approach to the interpretation of statutes suggests that he would rule against mandatory coverage for preëxisting conditions. If framed in the clearest terms, then, the politics of the Kavanaugh nomination favor rejection, not confirmation.
And what of the prospect of Trump naming an even more extreme nominee if Kavanaugh is rejected? History offers some lessons on this subject. In 1969, President Richard Nixon named Clement Haynsworth to succeed Abe Fortas, a crusading liberal, after Fortas resigned from the Court in a corruption scandal. Haynsworth was fairly moderate in his views, but his record on labor and civil rights was deemed insufficiently progressive, and the Senate voted him down, fifty-five to forty-five. Enraged by the rejection, Nixon explicitly sought to punish liberals by naming G. Harrold Carswell, who was noticeably more conservative than Haynsworth, to the seat. But a majority of the Senate kept up the fight and defeated Carswell, too, by a vote of fifty-one to forty-five. (The Carswell battle is best remembered for a dubious endorsement that the judge received from Senator Roman Hruska, a Republican of Nebraska: Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. Theyre entitled to a little representation, arent they? The late Richard Harris, a writer for The New Yorker, told the Carswell story well in his book Decision, from 1971.) In the end, Nixon nominated Harry A. Blackmun to fill the seat, and he served as a moderate for more than two decades. He was also, of course, the author of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, in 1973.
The same storya rejection of a conservative leading to an appointment of a moderatetook place in 1987, when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to succeed the retiring Lewis Powell on the Court. Bork had a distinguished record as an academic and an appellate judge, but his views were extremeon some of the same issues that Kavanaughs are, such as the right to privacy and the scope of civil-rights laws. As a result, the Senate voted Bork down, fifty-eight to forty-two. (In later years, conservatives turned Borks name into a verb, to identify victims of an unfair confirmation process. In fact, Borks record and subsequent writings showed that he was just what his critics said he was: a thoroughgoing reactionary.)
Reaganagain, in part, to punish liberalsnominated a younger conservative, Douglas H. Ginsburg, to fill the seat. But that nomination blew up when Ginsburg admitted that he had used marijuana when he was an assistant law professor at Harvard, and Reagan eventually surrendered to political reality and nominated someone more moderate: Anthony Kennedy.
At some point in the process, all four of these nomineesHaynsworth, Carswell, Bork, and Ginsburgseemed like shoo-ins for confirmation, much as Kavanaugh does today. And yet they were all defeated. And the Justices who took their places were closer to the judicial and political mainstream. To be sure, the analogies to Kavanaughs case can be overdrawn. The most obvious difference is that Democrats controlled the Senate when Nixon and Reagan made their nominations. And Nixon and Reagan were less right-wing than Trump has been, at least when it comes to judicial nominations. Trump and his allies can be expected to fight furiously for Kavanaugh precisely because Blackmun and Kennedy turned out to be more moderate than many anticipated. Still, the current Republican margin in the Senate (owing to John McCains absence) is just a single vote, and Kavanaughs long paper trail, both as a judge and as a Republican political appointee, gives Democrats a great deal of material to exploit. Most of all, they need to remember that fighting Supreme Court nominees, even against formidable odds, can succeedand produce a better Court than anyone might have expected.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 647 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should Democrats Bother Fighting Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation? History Suggests Yes (Original Post)
babylonsister
Jul 2018
OP
2naSalit
(86,508 posts)1. K&R!
Gothmog
(145,063 posts)2. I am in favor of fighting this nomination
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)3. Even if they lose in the end - go down fighting
inspire the base by the fire in your bellies.
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)4. K&R
Kaleva
(36,291 posts)5. Article is full of errors
Dems controlled the Senate when Haynsworth, Carswell and Bork were rejected. Ginsburg withdrew himself from consideration before being officially nominated.
This statement from the article is just plain silly:
"In light of that possibility, one theory goes, shouldnt Democrats surrender and allow Kavanaugh to take his seat on the Court? "
Dems, being the minority, are in no position to "allow" much of anything.
Bullshit article.