{"id":4452,"date":"2016-11-01T13:19:33","date_gmt":"2016-11-01T18:19:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/?p=4452"},"modified":"2016-11-01T18:21:44","modified_gmt":"2016-11-01T23:21:44","slug":"cynical-gop-busily-justifying-more-obstruction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/cynical-gop-busily-justifying-more-obstruction\/","title":{"rendered":"Cynical GOP Busy Justifying More Obstruction"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s another proof of why it’s so important that we elect Hillary Clinton and give her a Congress that will work with her to move our country forward.<\/p>\n

When Antonin Scalia passed away in February of this year the\u00a0GOP Senate\u00a0refused to consider\u00a0President Obama’s nominee to fill that seat on the Court, offering up the unprecedented and nonsensical excuse that “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.”\u00a0 Today, now that it looks like the American people might pick a Democrat with that voice, suddenly it’s not so important that the Supreme Court have nine justices. \u00a0I look forward to hearing from them if a Republican ever again becomes president how it’s absolutely vital to the future of our nation that the Supreme Court be fully staffed. \u00a0The cynicism would be shocking if it weren’t so in keeping with what we’ve been getting from them ever since I can remember.<\/p>\n

So silly of me to think we might be able to look forward to\u00a0something other than the endless obstruction and “years of investigations<\/a>” promised us by the leaders of the GOP. \u00a0I don’t know, maybe we could do something about, say, jobs<\/a> or\u00a0education funding<\/a> or inequality<\/a> or climate change<\/a> or maybe<\/a> poverty<\/a>.<\/p>\n

From Jonathan Chait this morning:<\/p>\n

\n

Why Republicans Won\u2019t Let Clinton Appoint a Supreme Court Justice If She Wins<\/a><\/h3>\n
\"Hang<\/a>

Hang on, Mitch McConnell is thinking of a new constitutional principle. Photo: Tom Williams\/CQ-Roll Call,Inc.\/Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n

If you still believe the Republican Party is coming apart at the seams, or even plunging into a civil war, look at what North Carolina senator Richard Burr<\/a> told volunteers this weekend in privately recorded audio. Burr dispensed with the myth that Donald Trump disagrees with the central thrust of the party platform, insisting, with mild exaggeration, that the nominee \u201caligns perfectly with where the Republican Party is.\u201d More important, he promised that he would oppose any candidate Hillary Clinton nominated to fill the vacancy created by Antonin Scalia\u2019s death \u201cif Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the spring of 2014, I predicted<\/a> that, should Republicans hold on to their Senate majority, they would never allow a Democratic president to confirm a justice should one of the conservative members die. Almost two years later, Scalia died, an event that happened so quickly it gave Republicans little time to formulate a sturdy rationale to defend what ideological and political self-interest dictated would have to become their position. They hastily converged on the idea that it was \u201ctoo late\u201d for Barack Obama to fill the seat, and that the proper (small-d<\/i>) democratic outcome required letting the winner of the election seat the next justice. \u201cThe American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,\u201d insisted Mitch McConnell. This was before Trump had wrapped up the nomination. Indeed, betting markets<\/a> at the time of Scalia\u2019s death still gave Trump less than an even chance of winning the nomination, and the presidential election seemed very winnable.<\/p>\n

But the likelihood of a Trump defeat will force the party to devise a new rationale. If Democrats take back the Senate majority, it will play out in fairly predictable fashion: Republicans will filibuster whoever President Clinton nominates, then the Democratic Senate will change the rules to outlaw filibusters of Supreme Court justices. But if Republicans hold the Senate, they will probably decide to simply hold the seat vacant. Why let this<\/em> election reflect the will of the people? Why not try for another election?<\/p>\n

Burr is hardly the only Republican to make this case. Such distinguished conservative legal minds as senator and former University of Texas law professor Ted Cruz<\/a>, constitutional scholar Michael Paulsen<\/a>, and Cato fellow in constitutional studies Ilya Shapiro<\/a> have all begun the arduous intellectual work of discovering why the Constitution demands that Clinton be denied a ninth justice. They have developed some promising theories that, should the electorate deliver the necessary Democratic presidency\u2013Republican Senate combination, will next year blossom into the foundational bedrock principles of the Republic itself.<\/p>\n

Under either scenario of a Clinton presidency, with either a Democratic or a Republican Senate, the GOP will find itself united in opposition. Mario Loyola<\/a> has a long essay in National Review<\/i> sounding what is sure to be the prevalent theme in conservative postelection rhetoric. \u201cConservative Republicans of a Never Trump persuasion are making a big mistake by making enemies of Trump\u2019s supporters \u2014 and vice versa,\u201d he argues. The party should not tear itself apart over such trivial matters as to whether it is a good idea to turn over the Executive branch to an unstable, dictator-admiring racist. Instead, it should unite around common beliefs, such as \u201cfight[ing] tooth and nail to keep Hillary Clinton from nominating a justice to fill [Scalia\u2019s] seat.\u201d Trump\u2019s nomination will not create a schism or a reckoning within the party that nominated him. Republicans will instead just continue lurching into the same direction they have been heading for decades<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n