There’s one big loser in the Kavanaugh fight
By Dick Polman
As we sift the mounting wreckage of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, what happened in 1992 seems quite pertinent.
That year, when the U.S, Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade, three of the majority justices were candidly concerned that Americans angered by the ruling might lose faith in the nation’s top judicial institution. They wrote that “the court’s legitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to the nation.”
Ponder those words, then ask yourself whether many Americans will view the high court as legitimate, as having a “principled character,” if a credibly accused sexual assailant, a Trumpian partisan who rails about conspiracies plotted by “the Clintons,” is ultimately awarded with a lifetime appointment. And the reverse is true as well. Ask yourself whether many Americans — on the flip side of the ideological divide — will view the high court as legitimate if (in their view) a stellar conservative candidate is ultimately denied a lifetime appointment thanks to the feminists in cahoots with the Democrats.
It’s obvious by now that Donald Trump has done great damage to a number of institutions, and it’s no surprise that he would wreak havoc on the Supreme Court by nominating a poster child for white male grievance. Still, some nuance is necessary. The electorate has been grievously polarized for more than a generation, and the Supreme Court’s perceived legitimacy has suffered as a result. Trump and his Senate enablers are merely making things worse.
The public mood was relatively sedate back in 1992, when the aforementioned trio of justices — Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy — fretted about legitimacy. The public mood was far more tempestuous in December 2000, when five Republican appointees stopped the Florida recount and awarded the presidency to the popular-vote loser, George W. Bush. Much was written that winter about whether the court had dealt a major blow to its legitimacy; indeed, Republican appointee John Paul Stevens warned in his dissenting opinion that the real loser in the ruling was “the nation’s confidence in the (court) as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Confidence in the court soared that winter among grassroots Republicans but plummeted elsewhere in the electorate.
In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts was reportedly so sensitized about public perception of the court that he switched his thumbs-down vote on Obamacare, believing that a 6–3 majority would convey more legitimacy. Today, in retrospect, given all that has happened since, his gesture on Obamacare looks downright enlightened.
Here’s what has happened since: After Antonin Scalia’s death opened a seat, Senate Republicans refused to even schedule a hearing for Obama nominee Merrick Garland, holding the seat open for nearly all of 2016, claiming that they wanted to let “the people” decide how the seat should be filled. This was naked partisan politics, an unprecedented act of obstruction.
“The people” responded on Election Day by electing a president who won nearly three million fewer votes than his opponent. Then came Neil Gorsuch, who took Garland’s rightful seat. Then came a hue and cry about the tainted image of the court. Russ Feingold, a former Democratic senator and Judiciary Committee member, warned before Gorsuch’s ascent that his confirmation would set “a dangerous precedent from which the legitimacy of our highest court might never recover.”
Then came the unexpected retirement of Anthony Kennedy; his announcement, this past June, conveniently maximized the prospects of a successor being confirmed by a Republican Senate — urgent timing, given the possibility that Democrats could capture the Senate in November.
That brings us to Kavanaugh, who’s now the subject of an eleventh-hour FBI probe that may or may not be sufficiently comprehensive. If a narrow FBI probe provides sufficient cover for the GOP’s fence-sitters to vote “yes,” that result could sow more hostility toward the court and its future rulings. Although, of course, the MAGA faction would be delighted.
To quote a fellow political analyst, David Wasserman, “A broken Senate will eventually produce a SCOTUS viewed by many as illegitimate.” The optimists among us would contend that our institutions are strong enough to weather any storm and that this too shall pass. Maybe. But all we can hear right now is the thunder. As the comic team of Laurel and Hardy would probably say to Trump and his Senate minions, “What a fine mess you’ve gotten us into now.”
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
