Three lessons from the Barrett confirmation hearings
Opinion by
Columnist
Oct. 16, 2020 at 6:45 a.m. CDT
Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), in keeping with his
might-makes-right operation of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge
Amy Coney Barrett, did not bother on
Thursday to adhere to the rule requiring at least two members of each party be
present for a confirmation vote. Senate rules are so 2016.
Instead,
he rammed home a party-line vote moving Barrett’s confirmation to the Senate
floor. The least credible and certainly least informative Supreme Court
confirmation hearing in my lifetime contains several lessons.
First,
“court packing” properly understood was the effort by President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt to increase the size of the court to put a stop to the series of
highly criticized Supreme Court rulings blocking New Deal legislation. The
court did not expand, but Roosevelt nevertheless “won.” Recall that FDR attained his goal of
removing an activist court’s impediment to his agenda because in two critical
cases the court backed off its assault on the New Deal. Thanks to one justice —
Owen Roberts — switching his votes, the court first upheld a minimum-wage law
from Washington state that was virtually the same as a New York law it struck
down only months before; it then upheld the National Labor Relations Act. No
other New Deal legislation was struck down.
With
regard to the current conversation on court-packing, the justices are certainly
on notice that decisions seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act
or a repudiation of precedent dating back decades will provoke a massive
backlash. The New York Times reports
that Democrats have laid down their marker:
“Don’t
think that when you have established the rule of ‘Because we can,’ that should
the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility to come to us and
say, ‘Yeah, I know you can do that but you shouldn’t,’” [Democratic Sen. Sheldon]
Whitehouse said. “Your credibility to make that argument at any time in the
future will die in this room and on that Senate floor if you continue to
proceed in this way.”
Senators and aides in
both parties took that as a veiled allusion to the possibility that Democrats,
should they win the presidency and control of the Senate next month, will end
the legislative filibuster or attempt to expand the number of justices on the
Supreme Court.
Congress
can also, for example, codify abortion rights and gay marriage in federal
statute, seek to limit justices’ terms or go after the court’s appellate
jurisdiction. It might consider taking the Supreme Court out of cases that
involve striking down state laws on constitutional or federal supremacy clause
grounds. (Circuit courts and state court applying federal law can resolve
those.) Just as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seems intent on saving the
right-wing court from itself (e.g., changing sides in the recent Louisiana
abortion case), perhaps Justice Neil M. Gorsuch might see the merit in adhering
to precedent if the alternative is a damaged court with more justices but less
credibility and less to do.
Second,
we should seriously consider doing away with Supreme Court confirmation
hearings. Nominated justices do not answer questions. They make disingenuous
assertions about their views, which leads only to a loss of respect for them
and the court.
Senators
can review written records, hear from other witnesses and interview the
justices privately. We might get more information about nominees that way and,
as a bonus, bolster both the Senate’s and the Supreme Court’s reputations by
avoiding these exercises in duplicity.
Third,
the two political parties revealed exactly what they stand for. Republicans are
the party of White-Christian grievance and whining about anti-Catholic bias
that was never raised by anyone but themselves. They have also shown little
interest in adding racial diversity to the court or looking for justices who
have a feel for contemporary American life — especially on race. (In
continually citing back to the Founders, Republicans seem to ignore the
dramatic reconfiguration of rights brought about by the post-Civil War
amendments and the sweeping language, in particular, of the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps a textualist such as Gorsuch will see fit to recognize the robust
meaning of phrases such as “equal protection.”)
The
Republicans quite obviously put a premium on judges willing to pursue an agenda
that is at odds with the elected branches and decades of precedent, a complete
reversal of the usual conservative pablum about judicial restraint. So long as
the Republican Party remains in the thrall of a radical and non-representative
sliver of America, Democrats will need to aggressively pursue their agenda in
the political branches, using Congress’s power to restrain an activist court,
if needed.
Democrats
“won” the hearings insofar as they correctly and ably tied Barrett and the
Republican Senate to an agenda that frightens most Americans (crippled gun
regulation, no Affordable Care Act, imperiled federal abortion rights). If
Americans want a country that doesn’t resemble the legal landscape Barrett
likely has in mind, it will behoove them to give Democrats large majorities for
the foreseeable future.
