This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/make-the-republicans-go-nuclear.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Make the Republicans Go Nuclear Don’t Let Republicans Steal the Seat
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are in the middle of pulling off one of the great political heists in American history: the theft of a seat on the United States Supreme Court. And this theft, if successful, will have an enormous impact on the integrity of the Supreme Court and major issues from reproductive and labor rights to consumer and environmental protection.WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are in the middle of pulling off one of the great political heists in American history: the theft of a seat on the United States Supreme Court. And this theft, if successful, will have an enormous impact on the integrity of the Supreme Court and major issues from reproductive and labor rights to consumer and environmental protection.
This crime against our Constitution began when Justice Antonin Scalia died nearly a year ago. Senate Republicans decided that day, before President Barack Obama even nominated a candidate to fill the seat, that they would reject their constitutional duty to provide “advice and consent” on any nominee he put forward.This crime against our Constitution began when Justice Antonin Scalia died nearly a year ago. Senate Republicans decided that day, before President Barack Obama even nominated a candidate to fill the seat, that they would reject their constitutional duty to provide “advice and consent” on any nominee he put forward.
After President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, they refused to hold committee hearings on his nomination or a committee vote. They were determined that his nomination would never reach the Senate floor, where they believed that he would stand an excellent chance of being confirmed.After President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, they refused to hold committee hearings on his nomination or a committee vote. They were determined that his nomination would never reach the Senate floor, where they believed that he would stand an excellent chance of being confirmed.
It is important to understand the motivation for this crime. The thing the Republican leadership feared most was that an Obama nominee would rule against the huge influx of “dark” money into political campaigns that is corrupting our system of government. They feared this outcome more than any other because it is that dark money, a vast amount of which came from the Koch brothers and their organization, that has played a huge role in putting the Republicans in the Senate majority.It is important to understand the motivation for this crime. The thing the Republican leadership feared most was that an Obama nominee would rule against the huge influx of “dark” money into political campaigns that is corrupting our system of government. They feared this outcome more than any other because it is that dark money, a vast amount of which came from the Koch brothers and their organization, that has played a huge role in putting the Republicans in the Senate majority.
This crime is going to do enormous damage to the integrity of the Supreme Court for decades to come. Filling this stolen seat with any individual other than Judge Garland will destroy Americans’ respect for the court. Rather than being seen as wise keepers of our constitutional values, justices will be viewed as beneficiaries of party patronage. Every 5-4 decision of the court will have a cloud hanging over it.This crime is going to do enormous damage to the integrity of the Supreme Court for decades to come. Filling this stolen seat with any individual other than Judge Garland will destroy Americans’ respect for the court. Rather than being seen as wise keepers of our constitutional values, justices will be viewed as beneficiaries of party patronage. Every 5-4 decision of the court will have a cloud hanging over it.
Moreover, if the strategy of stealing a seat succeeds, it’s a precedent that will haunt us each time we have a vacancy on the court. Next time the majority party of the Senate may argue that it is necessary to deny the president any nomination in order to rectify this wrong. Or it may argue that if one can steal a seat with a year to go in a president’s term, it is O.K. to do it for two years. The court will look worse and worse and the battles will grow.Moreover, if the strategy of stealing a seat succeeds, it’s a precedent that will haunt us each time we have a vacancy on the court. Next time the majority party of the Senate may argue that it is necessary to deny the president any nomination in order to rectify this wrong. Or it may argue that if one can steal a seat with a year to go in a president’s term, it is O.K. to do it for two years. The court will look worse and worse and the battles will grow.
The way to have resolved this debacle would have been for President Trump to renominate Judge Garland. Only in this manner could Mr. Trump have stopped this injustice, protected the integrity of the court and given the Senate the chance to return to some semblance of order on future nominations.The way to have resolved this debacle would have been for President Trump to renominate Judge Garland. Only in this manner could Mr. Trump have stopped this injustice, protected the integrity of the court and given the Senate the chance to return to some semblance of order on future nominations.
As we know, Mr. Trump chose a different course and nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, an extreme right-wing jurist who has ruled dozens of times for the powerful and against the less fortunate. Treating this nomination like the others that came before Judge Garland would effectively ratify the theft of the seat. That’s why I’m determined to vote against Judge Gorsuch and to maintain the 60-vote threshold met by President Obama’s two court nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.As we know, Mr. Trump chose a different course and nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, an extreme right-wing jurist who has ruled dozens of times for the powerful and against the less fortunate. Treating this nomination like the others that came before Judge Garland would effectively ratify the theft of the seat. That’s why I’m determined to vote against Judge Gorsuch and to maintain the 60-vote threshold met by President Obama’s two court nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Some have argued that insisting on the 60-vote requirement will simply cause the Republicans to exercise the so-called nuclear option, lowering the required support to a simple majority of 51. This is certainly a possibility, since the Republicans have already shown such disregard for Senate tradition and the integrity of the Supreme Court.Some have argued that insisting on the 60-vote requirement will simply cause the Republicans to exercise the so-called nuclear option, lowering the required support to a simple majority of 51. This is certainly a possibility, since the Republicans have already shown such disregard for Senate tradition and the integrity of the Supreme Court.
But I see accepting this nomination as going along with a different nuclear option, one the Republicans have already exercised. If Republicans will confirm nominees only of Republican presidents, or if Democrats will confirm nominees only of our own party, the court will be damaged. Furthermore, lowering the required vote threshold will not be such an easy decision for the Republicans, because the day will come when Democrats control both the White House and the Senate. Rest assured Republicans will wish the nuclear option had not been invoked.But I see accepting this nomination as going along with a different nuclear option, one the Republicans have already exercised. If Republicans will confirm nominees only of Republican presidents, or if Democrats will confirm nominees only of our own party, the court will be damaged. Furthermore, lowering the required vote threshold will not be such an easy decision for the Republicans, because the day will come when Democrats control both the White House and the Senate. Rest assured Republicans will wish the nuclear option had not been invoked.
Categorical opposition to this nomination is not retribution for the treatment of Judge Garland. It is a refusal to be party to a tactic that will deeply hurt the Supreme Court and, consequently, the rule of law. Yes, the outcome may well be that Senate Republicans strike another blow against our institutions by eliminating the 60-vote rule. But let it be their choice. I am not prepared to be complicit in the undermining of our government.Categorical opposition to this nomination is not retribution for the treatment of Judge Garland. It is a refusal to be party to a tactic that will deeply hurt the Supreme Court and, consequently, the rule of law. Yes, the outcome may well be that Senate Republicans strike another blow against our institutions by eliminating the 60-vote rule. But let it be their choice. I am not prepared to be complicit in the undermining of our government.