Let's throw some food! (respectfully)
Sophie Berman's Stance:
On February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away 11 months before the end of President Barack Obama's second term in office. The Constitutional procedure following the death of a Supreme Court Justice is for the Executive to nominate their pick to replace the open seat and the U.S. Senate to either confirm or reject the President's nominee. In our system of checks and balances, the Senate is obligated by the Constitution to provide "advice and consent" on presidential nominations. In what many liberals saw as a move to placate the Senate's Republican majority after the passing of their conservative judicial icon, President Obama nominated DC Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland to take Scalia's seat. While Obama could have selected a radical liberal, Garland was commonly regarded as an extremely qualified just left-of-center moderate or centrist. In fact, Garland was confirmed to the lower court in 1997 in a bipartisan vote of 76-23 so he was widely seen as an ideal candidate for the highest court in the nation that would be acceptable to Senate Republicans.
In what might be regarded by future generations as the first shot fired in the judicial wars of the early 21st Century, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took it upon himself to block the nomination of Judge Garland without ever allowing a Judiciary Committee hearing or full Senate vote for Obama's nominee. According to CNN, McConnell said, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Even though Obama had a full 11 months left in office, Republican Senators immediately fell in line with McConnell's brazen reinterpretation of Constitutional powers and forced the seat to remain open for more than a full year until it would be filled by the next President. Much to McConnells' delight, that President would be Trump and thus began a lopsided rightward shift in the balance of the court.
Now fast forward to September 18, 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a beloved pioneer in women's rights and champion of the left, passed away after her long struggle with cancer. The Wall Street Journal reported her dying wish as follows, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg told her granddaughter, Clara Spera. In Trumpian-fashion, the President went on to baselessly claim that Ginsberg's dying wish was fabricated by Democrats and announced his nomination to fill the vacant seat a mere eight days later, an utter disrespect to RBG's legacy.
Nonetheless, Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republican Senators eagerly supported a rushed confirmation process with the knowledge that due to the COVID and the economic crisis Trump was down in the polls and therefore had a slim chance at reelection -- they would never surrender the opportunity to tilt the court in their ideological favor while they completely disregarded the ongoing national crisis (the Senate failed to take any votes on a COVID relive package since April while placing a priority on stealing court appointees).
If the GOP held themselves to the same standards manufactured for Obama, it's undoubtedly clear that Amy Coney Barrett's should not have even been nominated, let alone the Senate should never have held hearings to confirm her during a pandemic. Obama nominated Garland 33 days after Scalia's passing and 270 days before the November 8th election. Trump, on the other hand, rushed to nominate Coney Barrett only 8 days after RBG's passing and with only 47 days until the November 3 election. In fact, by the time Coney Barrett was nominated and confirmed, hundreds of thousands of Americans had already cast their ballot for the next President, either by early in-person voting or mail-in voting. The country was in the middle of the election when Republicans changed positions in a rank power-grab for a life-time appointment. This hypocrisy is outrageous.
Either Republicans do not realize that publicly-available evidence exists of their flip-flop or they simply do not care whether their hypocrisy is blatantly obvious to everybody with an internet connection. As long as their position on any given day serves to cement their power and create a conservative court to last a generation, then the ends justify the means. Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee responsible for shepherding judicial confirmation hearings, said he was "dead set" on confirming any nominee from President Trump to replace Justice Ginsburg (might he at least want to know the person's name who he is "dead-set" on supporting - what if Trump had nominated Jeffrey Epstein instead?).
And if you need evidence of the Republican flip-flop on whether not they would hold off on confirmation of a vacancy in the run-up to a presidential election, National Public Radio (NPR) quotes Senator Graham, "If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination' " he said after the death of Justice Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right." OK, here we are in 2020, using your own words against you Mr. Senator; and we cry foul.
Beyond the hypocrisy, and questionable morality of the nomination and confirmation process, let's consider Coney Barrett's qualifications to sit on the high court. The New York City Bar Association found significant concerns over her qualifications for the Supreme Court including her lack of maturity, judgment, integrity, independence, and temperament reflecting a willingness to search for a fair resolution. Forbes Magazine noted a letter signed by over 200 of her colleagues, all of which called for her to withdraw her candidacy for the sake of the American people. Her atypical and limited experience includes attending a second-tier law school, spending just two years in private practice as an attorney, and 15 years as a law professor. Furthermore, she is part of a Catholic fringe group known as People of Praise. The New York Times indicates that members "swear a life-long oath of loyalty and accountability to their personal advisors" and teaches "that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority for their family". How could a religious zealot like this be truly unbiased and honor the separation of church and state?
Here are just a few of the questionable court rulings Barrett has made during her two years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals according to The Guardian newspaper. In Torry v. City of Chicago, Barrett determined officers were reasonable in stopping and harassing a group of black men when absolutely no evidence was provided that they committed a crime. In Biegert v. Molitor, Barrett sided with a policeman who shot and killed a mentally-ill man after the man's mother called 911 because her son was suicidal. In U.S. v Wilson, Barrett concluded police officers had reasonable suspicion to forcefully detain a black man when he ran away, because he had a "bulge in his pocket", was in a "high-crime area", and because a "reasonable officer could infer from Wilson's flight that Wilson knew he was in violation of the law". Finally, in Sims v. Hyatte, Barrett's opinion held that a black man in prison should be kept in prison even when he'd been convicted based on an eyewitness who had failed to disclose they were hypnotized prior in hopes of improving their memory.
If the American people should have a voice in the selection of their Supreme Court Justices as McConnell once claimed, then consider that the majority of Americans have picked the Democrat candidate by popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections and that since 1969, Republican Presidents have confirmed 15 Justices to the Court, compared to only 4 by Democrats. Notwithstanding that the Court is now 6-3 Conservative, Americans clearly lean center-left on most issues decided by the Court including women's reproductive rights, common-sense gun laws, gay marriage, civil rights, expanding the voter franchise, climate change, and ridding of corporate money from elections. If there is further doubt whether ACB can hold a candle to the legacy of RBG then just look at the US Senate's database which reveals ACB was confirmed by a party-line 52-48 vote while RBG was confirmed 96-3.
Kyle Virissimo's Stance:
The question is, should Amy Coney Barrett be allowed on the supreme court? And the answer isn’t yes, it is why not? There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist- anyone could do it. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx). Now to address the political opinions concerning if she should become a member of the supreme court. It is widely known that she is religiously conservative, and that President Trump nominated her at the time nearing the end of the election. Both of these have been very controversial topics in reference to her recent nomination to become a justice. She is a conservative, and also a Catholic, which seems to be a major problem with the democratic party, and people with liberal views. To this I have to ask, if she had a liberal point of view would they still be mad? No, they wouldn’t. It is a matter of opinion and preference, and to say someone should not be allowed on the supreme court because of their political views defeats the purpose of what we call America today. Yes, the supreme court may be a majority of conservatives now, but that should not be part of whether or not she should be allowed on the supreme court. If the new nominee was a liberal, the libertarian party would be celebrating. It is all a matter of opinion, and the fact that the only backlash Amy Coney Barrett is getting is stemming from the democratic party highlights this. What else would people expect than opposing parties condemning the nominees and elected officials they didn’t want? As Americans, our right to maintain our own beliefs is part of what this country was founded upon- having people with opposing views is an essential part of our government. Moving on to another controversial point, her religious views. To this I would like to point out that she said herself that she would try to keep her religious views out of her job and from clouding her decisions. I think that is as good of a response you are going to get from a devout Catholic. What else do you expect, her to drop being a Catholic? I thought that's also what this country was about, the right to practice whatever religion you want without being persecuted or discriminated against? On top of this, if people have such a problem with her being a devout Catholic, then you would think that they would also have a problem with the president- elect, Joe Biden, being a Catholic as well? The fact that no one is outraged over his religious affiliation suggests that those opposed to Amy Coney Barret’s nomination is more about the fact that she is a conservative. The opposition is only using her devotion to Catholicism to spearhead their fight to further their own political interests. Onto the next point people are furious with, the fact that Trump nominated her before the next president was elected. While a nomination from Trump was required to kickstart the process of her joining the supreme court, it still had to be passed by the senate to become official. And, I know, people are still going to take issue with the fact that the senate is notoriously republican, and conservative. To this I have to say tough luck, that is the way the government works, and if you want to reconstruct America over a Supreme court justice, you need to be focusing on the larger system rather than protesting a single justice. Another cause of outrage, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was that the nomination of the judge replacing her was delayed until the next President was elected. I love her, everyone loves her, and she loves almost everyone. I want to give her the respect she deserves for all she did for women's rights and her service as a supreme court justice. However, she may have requested this, but in no way is anyone required to listen to that. If I were president I would have respected her wishes, but Trump thought otherwise and took advantage of the opportunity to elect a conservative justice. Our government only works if each person and party use the opportunities they have to ensure their beliefs are supported. Then as power transitions, their decisions will be checked and others will take front stage. This cycle is what ensures everyone is represented within government. For his administration and those that agree with his beliefs, this was a smart move, and the senate thought similarly as Amey Coney Barrett was appointed a supreme court justice on October 26. In conclusion, although people might not like that Amy Coney Barrett was appointed as a supreme court justice, they need to realize this is the way government works- the reality of government is that you are not always going to get your way.
Sophie's response to Kyle:
Although there are no lawful requirements, as one the global leaders, the United States has a responsibility to its people and the world to pick the most qualified people for prestigious positions such as the Supreme Court. In reference to her religious affiliations, I promise you, nobody is mad about Coney Barret being a devout Catholic. In fact, it shows a lot of morality as many politicians both left and right leaning are members of the Church. However, to say she is just a Catholic is wrong. Her outlandish, and quite honestly cult-like, religious community People of Praise’s beliefs are the issue. 1A grants her free practice of religion, and I 100% support that along with every other American, but taking a one second dive into People of Praise reveals its innately misogynistic practices. Although that should not stop her from joining the court on its own, it does raise sizable concerns in the reflection of her beliefs in her decision making to many Americans and myself. You cannot compare her to Biden’s Catholicism, as he is not affiliated with her community that carries a plethora of side beliefs. The next point about that being the way our government functions, I agree with. You are correct in that there is nothing illegal in her nomination, however I believe there are injustices. A 6-3 Conservative court is extremely disproportionate to the country’s views. One of many is that Merrick Garland should have gotten Justice Neil Gorsuch’s seat after the death of Scalia, and that is just blatantly obvious. We pride ourselves in being the greatest democracy, but the justices in the highest court of our country do not accurately reflect that. Trump completed three successful nominations, F.D. Rosevelt completed nine, Obama did two. I am stating this with nonpartisanship- these presidents are on both ends of the spectrum- I just believe that luck of Supreme Court Justice deaths while a president happens to be in term accelerates the inordinate representation we face. Amy Coney Barret is one of the nine justices, there is nothing the citizens whether outraged or pleased can do, however there is a clear call for criticism that many citizens, including myself, have exercised as we do realize this is the way government works, but find inequalities in the processes.
Kyle's response to Sophie:
Yes, Obama tried to nominate a democratic candidate and it was blocked by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. However, that event can not be compared to Amy Coney Barret’s nominations. During that time, the senate majority was republican while the president’s administration was democratic. McConnell exercised his right to prevent a left-leaning judge from joining the court. If the senate majority was democratic at the time of Barrett's nomination I am sure they would have blocked that nomination as well. They’re actions did not violate any rules, rather, they used the power they had been given to promote the interests of those who had given it to them. This is what our senate representatives are supposed to do- everything in their power to ensure the values they were elected on are portrayed in government (in this case, republican ideals). To the argument that Trump nominated Barrett to close to the election I ask, what does it matter how many days Trump nominated and elected her before he was out of office, he was still in office! The argument that his actions were not “fair” or “right” is based on opinion, on what should have been done instead, and what would have been fair. Lifes not fair, America isn’t fair. In reference to how soon Barrett was nominated after RBG’s death, yes, I agree it was disrespectful, but do you honestly expect them to not take the chances they have been given? The amount of disrespectful things Trump has done in his life would go on a list longer than the actual empire state building, it was rude, he still did it. However there is no rule saying what RGB says must go, she does not have that power. Amy Coney Barret being nominated was completely within the rules of our government. When it comes down to it, my opposition simply didn’t point out anything that was illegal or against the rules when it came to nominating and choosing Amy Coney Barret as a justice on the supreme court. Rather, she pointed out that it was disrespectful, and it hurt people’s feelings. Perhaps there are loopholes that should not be there, many republicans are hypocritical, and clearly, her nomination is not what the liberals wanted. To all of this I have to say- that's how the government works.
Whom do you agree with?
*Keep in mind: neither opinion expressed is endorsed or in affiliation with the dinner table talk; this is all for educational purposes! This is specifically an article meant to address differing perspectives in order to expose one to new opinions :)
Kyle's Sources:
Sophie's Sources:
Comments