If there is one thing that would make the already intense 2020 election a slugfest for the ages, it would have to be a bitter Supreme Court fight layered on top.
Grab your popcorn, because President Trump absolutely plans to nominate a justice if the opportunity arises.
“Would I do that? Of course,” Trump said in an exclusive interview with The Hill on Monday.
Trump’s position places him in alignment with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), whom Democrats have blamed for blocking consideration of Obama nominee Merrick Garland in 2016. It seems that Trump and McConnell are both ready to take the gloves off and fill any seat that may become open at the Supreme Court ahead of the 2020 election.
Leaving no doubt
McConnell has been criticized by Democrats and praised by Republicans for what some see as an unscrupulous, but successful, approach to judicial nominations. He notably helped pave the way for Brett Kavanaugh’s successful confirmation to the Supreme Court amid a brutal paritsan fight that almost tore the country apart.
In 2016, McConnell refused to move on Garland’s nomination, citing the fact that it was a presidential election year. But the Republican made it clear after Kavanaugh’s nomination that he wasn’t going to let precedent stop him from pushing for a third Trump Supreme Court pick — even if it happens to coincide with the 2020 election. McConnell has argued that the situation in 2020 is not comparable to 2016, saying that blocking nominees is only called for when the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties. The majority leader has said that he is working from precedent, since the last time the Senate confirmed a judge nominated by the opposing party was in the 1880s.
Asked whether he was changing his position from when he supported McConnell’s blocking of Garland, Trump also asserted that 2016 and 2020 are simply not comparable scenarios. “They couldn’t get him approved,” Trump said of the circumstances surrounding Garland’s nomination.
“That’s the other problem because they didn’t have the Senate. If they had the Senate, they would have done it,” Trump said of Democrats.
He continued, “It depends. I mean, we have the Senate. We have a great Senate. We have great people. If we could get him approved, I would definitely do it. No, I’d do it a lot sooner than that. I’d do it. If there were three days left, I’d put somebody up hoping that I could get ’em done in three days, OK?”
As recently as last month, McConnell said, “Oh, we’d fill it” when asked if he would take action on another vacancy.
Politicized court
The brutal nomination fight over Kavanaugh heralded a new era of high-stakes politics, in which no institution is above the muck and no strategy is off limits. With America split by a wide cultural gap, conservatives and liberals alike have increasingly looked to the Supreme Court as a political weapon.
In this highly contentious envirionment, the Supreme Court is more politicized than ever, and court watching has become a morbid hobby of sorts. Pundits and casual observers alike have taken to speculating about the health, age, and retirement plans of the court’s aging members. Three sitting justices are older than 70 years of age, with two (Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 86 and Stephen Breyer at nearly 81) having also achieved octogenarian status.
When Ginsburg missed oral arguments for the first time over a health scare, many progressives worried that the liberal icon would soon step down, leaving Trump with another vacancy to fill. Similar rumors have swirled about the retirement of Clarence Thomas, but the progressive and conservative icons, respectively, have both indicated they plan to work for a good while longer.
If Trump did have the chance to fill a vacancy during an election year, the already divisive 2020 election would almost certainly be an epic, and indeed brutal, contest for the history books. The most likely judge to retire would be the oldest, Ginsburg. If she stepped down, progressive groups would surely come out in full force to stop whomever Trump nominates with a bloody vengeance.
The politicization of the Supreme Court is not just confined to activist groups, lawmakers and citizens. Ginsburg recently called the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, who was replaced by Kavanaugh, “the event of greatest consequence for the current term, and perhaps many terms ahead,” as she previewed more rulings along sharp ideological lines.
President Trump has led a furious push to fill the federal bench with conservative jurists, much to the chagrin of the left. Progressives have worried that a successful effort by Trump to remake the courts could put landmark liberal rulings such as Roe v. Wade in real jeopardy.
No comments: