You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myStatesman.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myStatesman.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myStatesman.com.

Opinion: To defend rule of law, Dems must filibuster Gorsuch hearing


Hearings on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee begin this week. By all accounts, his choice, Neil Gorsuch, is highly qualified for the position. Those on both the right and left speak to his intelligence, his considerate approach to legal analysis, and the care with which he approaches each case. Under normal circumstances, he might sail to an easy confirmation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appointment process has become anything but normal.

The initial break can be traced as far back as 1987 — when Democrats rejected Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork. Over the following decades, the appointment process to the high court grew tenser and more partisan, but even with mutual bruised feelings, nominations managed to proceed reasonably smoothly.

Last spring, conditions changed dramatically. To fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia, President Obama chose Merrick Garland — a “consensus nominee” in the words of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Like Gorsuch, Garland was eminently qualified and highly regarded by all sides. Moreover, unlike Gorsuch — who would be among the most conservative judges on the Court — Garland is near the middle of the ideological spectrum.

However, Senate Republicans refused to even consideration Garland’s nomination, creating a vacancy that has now lasted over a year. This was within their power, since no codified rules exist to ensure a vote. But it was a sharp break from centuries of tradition, in which presidents have been granted the courtesy of a vote on their nominations.

Now, Democrats are faced with a dilemma.

Should they model the behavior they asked Republicans to employ last year and allow a vote on Gorsuch? Or should they utilize their own tool of resistance — the filibuster — to protest the boundary-breaking behavior of the Republicans? The maxim that two wrongs do not make a right urges in one direction. But as tempting as this logic may be, it should be rejected.

If it was purely a matter of vindictiveness, or of power politics, a filibuster truly would be just another wrong. But it would instead be an effort to hold Republicans accountable for breaking the basic norm: that sitting presidents have a right and responsibility to fill vacancies that arise during their terms in office

That tradition is essential, and is worth defending. Its chief function is to protect the legal realm from the full brunt of partisan battles. The work of the Supreme Court is, of course, political in nature. It would not instill such deep feelings on both sides of the political divide if it were not. But the Court carries a special obligation to safeguard the rule of law. In that task, its independence from the political branches is essential. And such independence is precisely what the breaking of these norms endangers. In the world envisioned by the Republican blockade of Merrick Garland, qualifications for the job are reduced exclusively to partisan interests, and the Court becomes nothing more than one more football to be kicked around in the search for political dominance.

Now, more than ever, Democrats should refuse this logic.

The presidency of Donald Trump poses significant questions about core principles of American democracy: checks and balances, and the separation of power. A number of lawsuits have already been filed challenging his expansive interpretation of executive power and his administration’s apparent willingness to resist direct court orders. At a moment, when our core Constitutional values may soon be trusted to the care of the Supreme Court, Democrats must challenge the idea that long-standing normative protections against abuse of power can be broken without consequence.

Judge Gorsuch is an excellent jurist, and deserves a fair hearing. If another vacancy opens on the Court, Democrats should give him all the respect and due consideration that he deserves. Until that day, however, they cannot and must not permit a vote.

Olney is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Viewpoints: Legislature should end illusion and provide real tax cuts
Viewpoints: Legislature should end illusion and provide real tax cuts

To successfully pull off their stunts and tricks before audiences, great magicians employ the art of misdirection. The same is true for some politicians, such as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has crafted a clever misdirection in the form of Senate Bill 2. Patrick, a Houston Republican, claims the measure “would bring about the largest property...
Commentary: The real reason Trump wanted Cuba restrictions
Commentary: The real reason Trump wanted Cuba restrictions

President Donald Trump’s reversal of his predecessor’s Cuban policies proves once again that all politics are local. The White House says that the regime of Raúl Castro should reform its own political structure, become more democratic and release political prisoners. However, the U.S. does not impose these broad internal reforms...
Commentary: How politics — again — stand in the way of energy solutions
Commentary: How politics — again — stand in the way of energy solutions

In energy policy, political polarization often gets in the way of commonsense solutions to problems. General Electric recently announced a technological advance that would allow pipeline companies to use drone-mounted cameras to inspect their lines for corrosion and leaks. This is the kind of development that could, with the right regulatory support...
Best-sellers, 6/25/17
Best-sellers, 6/25/17

NEW YORK TIMES BEST-SELLERS FICTION 1. ‘Camino Island,’ John Grisham 2. ‘The Identicals,’ Elin Hilderbrand 3. ‘Tom Clancy: Point of Contact,’ Mike Maden 4. ‘Into the Water,’ Paula Hawkins 5. ‘Dragon Teeth,’ Michael Crichton 6. ‘Come Sundown,’ Nora Roberts 7. ‘No Middle Name...
Viewpoints: Legislature should end illusion and provide real tax cuts
Viewpoints: Legislature should end illusion and provide real tax cuts

To successfully pull off their stunts and tricks before audiences, great magicians employ the art of misdirection. The same is true for some politicians, such as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has crafted a clever misdirection in the form of Senate Bill 2. Patrick, a Houston Republican, claims the measure “would bring about the largest property...
More Stories