Republican Senators Line Up to Back Trump on
Court Fight
Senator Lindsey Graham, the Judiciary Committee
chairman, says Republicans have the votes to confirm the president’s choice
before the Nov. 3 election, though it will still be a challenge.
By Peter
Baker and Nicholas Fandos
Sept. 21,
2020
WASHINGTON
— President Trump appeared to secure enough support on Monday to fill the
Supreme Court seat left open by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
without waiting for voters to decide whether to grant him a second term in what
would be the fastest contested confirmation in modern history.
As Mr.
Trump promised to announce his choice for the seat by Friday or “probably
Saturday,” after memorial services for Justice Ginsburg, several key Senate
Republicans threw their support behind a campaign-season dash to replace the
liberal jurist by the election on Nov. 3 with a conservative who would shift
the court’s ideological center to the right for years to come.
“We’ve got
the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,”
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee and a close Trump ally, said Monday night on Fox News.
“We’re going to move forward in the committee; we’re going to report the
nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we
can vote before the election.”
Such a
timetable would leave only 38 days for the Senate to act and, as a practical
matter, even less time because it is highly unlikely that Republicans would
want to vote in the last few days before an election in which several of them
face serious threats. Some senior Republican senators were still expressing
caution about such an accelerated timetable even with the votes seemingly in
hand, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has not
publicly committed to a pre-election vote.
But the
president was buoyed after Senators Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Cory
Gardner of Colorado, two of three remaining Republicans who might have opposed
filling the seat, announced that they would support moving ahead with a
nomination even though they refused to consider President Barack Obama’s
nomination in an election year in 2016. That left only Senator Mitt Romney of
Utah considered undecided, but even without him, it appeared to guarantee at
least 50 Republican votes to move ahead, with Vice President Mike Pence available
to break a tie.
With polls
showing Mr. Trump trailing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the
Democratic presidential nominee, the president insisted on pressing ahead
without waiting for an election he could lose. “I’d much rather have a vote
before the election because there’s a lot of work to be done, and I’d much
rather have it,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “We have plenty of time to do it. I
mean, there’s really a lot of time.”
Mr. Trump
privately met at the White House on Monday with Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, his
front-runner and a favorite of anti-abortion conservatives, who have told him
that she is a female Antonin Scalia. The president spent much of the day with
her and later told associates that he liked her, according to people close to
the process, who considered her increasingly likely to be the pick.
Justice
Ginsburg, who died on Friday at 87, will be honored at a private ceremony in
the Great Hall of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, then will lie in
repose outside the building for the rest of the day and on Thursday, the court
announced, an unusual arrangement intended to accommodate the tens of thousands
of admirers expected to pay their respects in the middle of the coronavirus
pandemic.
The justice
will also lie in state in the United States Capitol, the first woman in
American history to be so honored, and her coffin will be placed on the same
catafalque that bore the body of President Abraham Lincoln, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi announced on Monday. The only other member of the Supreme Court ever to
lie in state at the Capitol was William Howard Taft, who had served as
president before becoming chief justice.
The
politics of Justice Ginsburg’s replacement roiled Washington as senators
returned to town for the first time since her death. Two Republican senators,
Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said over the weekend that
they opposed filling the seat until voters decide the presidency.
But Mr.
McConnell reiterated that he intended to fill the seat before year’s end,
without explicitly committing to a vote before the election. “The Senate has more
than sufficient time to process a nomination,” he said on the Senate floor.
“History and precedent make that perfectly clear.”
“This
Senate will vote on this nomination this year,” he added in a speech that was
intended to justify proceeding after Republicans refused to even consider Mr.
Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland for almost nine months in 2016
partly on the grounds that voters should have a say in who filled the lifetime
appointment.
Mr.
McConnell and other Republicans rationalized taking the opposite position this
year because their party controls both the White House and the Senate. Mr.
Graham, for one, had vowed repeatedly not to support confirming any selection
by Mr. Trump in an election year in keeping with the 2016 decision, only to
flip-flop this weekend.
In a letter
to Democrats on Monday, Mr. Graham made no attempt to argue that he was being
consistent or following a nonpartisan principle, but instead said he reversed
himself in retaliation for the Democrats’ treatment of Justice Brett M.
Kavanaugh when he was confirmed in 2018 and because Republicans have the power
to proceed. “I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the
same,” Mr. Graham wrote.
Mr.
Grassley, his predecessor as chairman and a key figure in helping Mr. McConnell
block consideration of Judge Garland, likewise reversed himself on Monday. As
recently as this summer, Mr. Grassley told reporters that out of fairness and
consistency, he would not consider a Trump nominee before the election if he
were still chairman.
But in a
statement on Monday, he noted that the chairmanship was now Mr. Graham’s, and
he would support his decision.
“Once the
hearings are underway, it’s my responsibility to evaluate the nominee on the
merits, just as I always have,” Mr. Grassley said. “The Constitution gives the
Senate that authority, and the American people’s voices in the most recent
election couldn’t be clearer.”
Mr.
Gardner, who is badly trailing his Democratic rival in a blue state where Mr.
Trump is deeply unpopular, likewise threw his support to the president. “I have
and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our
Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law,” he said.
“Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote
to confirm.”
Mr. Romney,
a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, was seen as the last Republican who might balk.
He is concerned about preserving the court’s public reputation, but he is also
a conservative reluctant to let an opportunity to shape the court pass by,
aides said. He said he planned to announce his views after a senators’ lunch on
Tuesday.
Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, excoriated Republicans for
what he called a brazen power play. “To try and decide this at this late moment
is despicable and wrong and against democracy,” Mr. Schumer told reporters.
Privately,
Mr. McConnell polled advisers and deputies about a complex set of political
considerations with control of the Senate and presidency at stake. Some
Republicans argued for announcing a nominee right away and beginning hearings
but waiting to vote in a lame-duck session after the election.
Senator Roy
Blunt of Missouri, a member of Mr. McConnell’s leadership team, said confirming
a new justice by Nov. 3 would set “the new recent world record.” He added,
“We’d have to do more than we’ve done in a long time to get one done that
quickly, but it’s possible.”
Since 1975,
the average Supreme Court confirmation has taken about 70 days, and only two
were quicker than currently contemplated — Justices John Paul Stevens in 1975
and Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981, both of whom were approved unanimously. Since
Justice Ginsburg was confirmed with little resistance in 1993, no confirmation
has taken less than 62 days.
The last
time a Supreme Court nominee facing meaningful opposition was confirmed in 38
days or less from the day of their initial nomination was in 1949. While the
Senate has approved other nominees to the court in election years, none has
been confirmed so close to a presidential election in American history.
The
calendar is not Mr. Trump’s friend at this point. The Senate is out of session
for Yom Kippur next Monday and Tuesday, leaving fewer than 25 business days
before Election Day to vet any nominee, conduct multiple days of hearings and
hold committee and floor votes. If they moved at breakneck speed with no
surprises, Republicans could, in theory, hold a vote by late the week of Oct. 19
or early the next.
Democrats
have a few tools to slow down the process — most notably the ability to
postpone approval by the committee for a week — but they quite likely have no
means to stop Republicans altogether because filibusters were eliminated in
Supreme Court confirmations. If a vote were to be delayed until after the
election, Democrats could quickly gain an extra vote, assuming Mark Kelly wins
a special election in Arizona and is sworn into that seat in November.
To White
House officials, the short time frame argued for Judge Barrett because she was
a finalist two years ago and therefore already largely vetted. As she met with
the president on Monday and came away poised to be chosen, there was still
attention on Judge Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit because she is a
Cuban-American from Florida, a critical state for the president’s re-election
chances.
Mr. Trump
told reporters that he had narrowed the list to five women, but the other three
identified by the people informed about the process were seen as long shots:
Kate Todd, a deputy White House counsel, and Judges Allison Jones Rushing of
the Fourth Circuit and Joan L. Larsen of the Sixth Circuit.
The brewing
confirmation fight quickly became a campaign issue. Committing an initial $2.2
million in spending, Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group,
fired the first shots in what is expected to be a costly advertising war to try
to sway public sentiment and influence key Republican senators. The group said
it would run ads in Colorado and Utah, as well as in Iowa, Maine and North
Carolina, where Republican incumbents are in competitive races.
Republicans
hope the issue will rally conservative voters who might otherwise not turn out,
but a poll released on Monday suggested that Democrats might be more energized
by the fight. Sixty percent of Democrats called the Supreme Court “very
important” in deciding their vote in November, up 12 percentage points, while
54 percent of Republicans agreed, according to the survey by Politico and
Morning Consult.
While aides
wanted him to announce his pick as early as Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he opted to
wait out of deference to Justice Ginsburg. But even as he talked about showing
respect for her, he asserted with absolutely zero evidence that her dying wish
that she not be replaced until the next president is chosen, as conveyed by her
granddaughter to NPR, was actually scripted by Democrats like Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Schumer or Representative Adam B. Schiff of California.
“I don’t
know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and
Pelosi?” he told “Fox & Friends.” “I would be more inclined to the second,
OK, you know? That came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that
sounds like a Schumer deal, or maybe a Pelosi or Shifty Schiff.”
Reporting
was contributed by Maggie Haberman and Michael Gold from New York, and Michael
Crowley and Emily Cochrane from Washington.
Peter Baker
is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents
for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of six books, most
recently "The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker
III." @peterbakernyt • Facebook
Nicholas
Fandos is a national reporter based in the Washington bureau. He has covered
Congress since 2017 and is part of a team of reporters who have chronicled
investigations by the Justice Department and Congress into President Trump and
his administration. @npfandos
Opinion
An Open Letter to Mitt Romney
Here’s why Lindsey Graham is wrong.
By Bret
Stephens
Opinion
Columnist
Sept. 21,
2020
It isn’t
hard to guess what you’re hearing from most of your fellow Republicans as they
try to persuade you to cast a vote for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee
before the election. In a nutshell, it’s this: “The Democrats didn’t play by
the rules in the past, and you’d be a fool to think they will play by them in
the future. So why should we not fill a seat that’s constitutionally ours to
have?”
It’s bad advice.
Bad for the country. Bad for the party. Bad for you.
Lest you
think I don’t get the argument, let me rehearse it. There used to be a
bipartisan tradition of confirming well-qualified nominees for the court.
Democrats trashed it with their trashing of Robert Bork. There used to be a
bipartisan tradition of approving well-qualified nominees for lower courts.
Democrats trashed it by filibustering George W. Bush’s appellate court
nominees. There used to be a bipartisan tradition of respecting the filibuster.
Democrats trashed it by blowing up the filibuster in 2013. There used to be a
tradition of the Judiciary Committee treating nominees with a sense of
fairness. Democrats trashed it when they used uncorroborated allegations to try
to block and besmirch Brett Kavanaugh.
In short,
whatever sin is involved in moving forward on Trump’s next nominee this close
to a presidential election, it’s a venial one compared with what the other side
has done, and may still do.
Nor, I
imagine, is that everything your caucus colleagues are telling you. The left,
they say, is engaged in a full-scale attack on traditional American values,
from freedom of speech to the presumption of innocence to the right to bear
arms to the need to enforce our immigration laws to the broader concept of law
and order. These things are too important to hazard on a bare 5-4 conservative
majority on the Supreme Court, especially now that John Roberts has succumbed
to the lure of being the swing vote. A 6-3 majority might be the only sure defense
against this cultural revolution for a generation to come.
So I get
the analysis. And I agree that Democrats have a lot to answer for, the
Kavanaugh circus in particular.
But the
questions you might helpfully ask yourself are these: When did any person or
party ever get clean by following another into the gutter? And if decades of
Democratic transgressions against Senate norms are bad, how are those norms
improved by Republican transgressions against them?
One answer
you might hear to this is that it’s no sin for a president to exercise his
constitutional right to nominate a judge at any point in his tenure or for the
Senate to vote on the nomination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation process,
after all, took a grand total of some 50 days.
Yet it was
Republicans who unilaterally changed the norms in 2016 to block Merrick
Garland’s nomination to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. And people like Lindsey
Graham promised they would live by the new norms, even if it was politically
inconvenient. It’s a promise Graham is reneging on, but has a moral obligation
to honor.
I realize
your decision may seem more difficult if Trump nominates a judge whose
philosophy and character you admire. No doubt you’d like to see such a judge on
the court. But refusing to cast a vote until next year merely delays her
elevation by a few months — assuming, that is, that Trump wins and Republicans
retain their Senate majority.
This,
however, raises a philosophical consideration. If a central conservative
complaint about the federal judiciary is that it has arrogated too many powers
that ought to be in the hands of the people, how can conservatives justify
entrenching their power in the courts in the expectation that they’re unlikely
to win at the polls? The Garland rule (or, if you prefer, the Biden rule) may
have had no basis in the Constitution, but at least it was consonant with the
populist drift in conservative thinking.
Now you
have a Republican Party that seeks to advance its notions of judicial modesty
and democratic accountability by the most immodest means imaginable, all in
order to lock in conservative control over the least democratic branch of
government. Wouldn’t the better Republican way be to try to win more elections
with better candidates?
I respect
the fact that you’re a pragmatic politician who values the views of your
colleagues and constituents — most of whom, I suspect, would likely favor rapid
confirmation of the nominee. But as you so eloquently put it in February, when
you cast the lone G.O.P. vote to convict President Trump in his impeachment
trial, “freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our
national character.” A Republican Party that lies and bamboozles voters
contributes nothing to improving that character.
Senator, it
may not have been your destiny to be president. But it’s still yours to show
Americans what it means to be courageous by way of sound and independent
judgment. Your decision alone won’t make all the difference; three Republican
senators would need to join you. But — with your colleagues Susan Collins and
Lisa Murkowski — it will show the way.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário