Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is stained by the GOP’s
recklessness on covid-19
Opinion by
Columnist
Oct. 9, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. CDT
It is
impossible to separate the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme
Court from the Republican refusal to put the health and safety of others first
during covid-19 pandemic. They will always be intertwined.
Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) let the cat out of the bag when he
admitted on Thursday that he had not been to the White House since August. “I
haven’t actually been to the White House since August the 6th because my
impression was their approach to how to handle this is different from mine and
what I insisted that we do in the Senate, which is to wear a mask and practice
social distancing,” he said. This is a damning
indictment not only of the president’s reckless disregard for others, but also
of McConnell’s own policies on covid-19. While McConnell might wear a mask,
there is no mandatory rule for all senators and staff to do the same. At
least three senators have
been infected recently; some Republican senators including two on the Judiciary
Committee (Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa)
refuse to be tested.
In
other words, Senate Republican seem just as reckless as President Trump. They
are knowingly willing to put others (senators, staff and families of both) in
danger in seeking political advantage. Graham’s Democratic opponent for Senate,
Jaime Harrison, wisely called Graham out for
ducking a coronavirus test. “The debate moderators and I have agreed to take a
COVID test prior to debating. I’ve scheduled my test, and I am calling on Sen.
Graham to do the same,” Harrison tweeted. If Graham refuses a test, it will be
powerful ammunition for Harrison and Senate Democrats that Graham is recklessly
indifferent to others’ health.
Such
charges could be levied against Barrett, too. She attended both the outdoor
ceremony and the indoor reception at the White House on Sept. 26 that were
likely a superspreader event. Almost everyone there was unmasked — including
Barrett. Social distancing was not observed. As someone who reportedly
contracted the coronavirus in the summer, how could she allow such a reckless
and dangerous event to proceed? Perhaps she was too anxious to please the White
House and not concerned enough about exerting her independent judgment — a
problematic mind-set for a judge.
Barrett,
too, is responsible if her confirmation hearings proceed next week without full
covid-19 guidelines in place, including testing for all participants. She can
bring a halt to a public health hazard in the making. Once again, her judicial
temperament and judgment are at issue. Is there no pro-life Republican who will
declare this recklessness unacceptable and demand the hearings be delayed until
safe protocols are in place?
Aside
from the covid-19 issues, two other points are worth making regarding Barrett’s
nomination. One concerns process, the other substance.
The
first is that former vice president Joe Biden should give a straight answer on
whether he would add justices to the Supreme Court. Biden should explain why
doing so would be entirely appropriate rather than offering his campaign
talking point that he does not want his answer to serve as a “distraction.”
First, he is not conceding Barrett will be on the court, and second, he does
not know which party will control the Senate. Third, it could be dependent on
Barrett’s conduct: If she is on the court but, for example, rebuffs Trump’s
attempts to invalidate the election or recuses herself from such a case, that
would be one thing; if she is eager to capitulate to Trump and try to
delegitimize his defeat, that is quite another. Biden needs to give a better
answer to a legitimate question.
The
second point is that Republicans have a dead-bang loser in trying to push
through another conservative onto the court during an election. Polls
increasingly show that overturning Roe v. Wade is hugely
unpopular. That is why Vice President Pence, when asked during the debate on
Wednesday if his home state of Indiana should outlaw or restrict abortion,
declined to say. His answer almost certainly would be yes, but he is afraid to
scare off voters. Republicans used to complain that Roe was a
judicial infringement on a political issue best left to the political branches;
now Republicans want to use the court to block majority opinion. (It is of a
piece with Republicans’ embrace of authoritarianism and contempt for democracy.)
Likewise, Barrett’s expressed animosity toward Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Jr.’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act is proving to be yet another
stake in the heart of the GOP Senate majority.
It is
long past time — for political, moral and now health reasons — for Republicans
to put decency and concern for others first. If they do not, they may spend a
long time in the political wilderness.