Despite protests from Democratic Party members, President Trump’s third nominee’s confirmation process to the Supreme Court should continue as planned. The election is close, and the nation is still in the midst of a pandemic. Still, those are not reasons enough to halt a process that is underway and in accordance with the Constitution.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death during a tumultuous election year is a reminder of how partisan the process of a high court nomination has become. In addition to calls for postponement due to the election, Democrats demanded Republicans honor Ginsburg’s “dying wish” that a new president chooses her replacement. But pleas to cancel until further notice do not hinge upon personal requests, or whether the minority party dislikes it. The same holds with the latest plot twist.
Multiple GOP politicians have tested positive for the coronavirus, including several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It encouraged Democrats to attempt another delay. On Saturday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear that committee work will continue as scheduled with a combination of in-person and virtual attendance. A hybrid approach to committee meetings has been the protocol since May.
Even though virtual hearings aren’t new, Democrats such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insist “virtual hearings … are not sufficient for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” That’s nonsense.
If regular, but no-less-important work took place these past few months, there is no reason to cancel nomination hearings. Attendees can use whatever means appropriate for their situations. Just last week, former FBI Director James Comey appeared virtually before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Democrats seem to think they hold the moral high ground considering the date on the calendar and the reality of an ongoing pandemic. These issues make this particular process unusual but are not grounds for delay. The best political argument Democrats can use against Republicans right now is their hypocrisy in encouraging an election-year nomination, as several GOP politicians whose previous statements about the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 directly conflict with their views about Amy Coney Barrett. Their words are partisan but do not invalidate the current nomination process.
Because safety should be the top priority right now, it only makes sense that any committee member who is sick or knowingly exposed to COVID-19 should excuse themselves from in-person attendance at the hearings. If they are too ill to fulfill their duties, that is another story entirely. This “new normal” requires that people alter their daily lives to varying degrees. This includes elected leaders tasked with carrying out their duties. The hearings are not contingent upon whether their colleagues across the aisle agree with them or not.
Thanks to the absurdity of tribalism, it’s not surprising the two political parties act in ways they would criticize if the situation were reversed. It’s fair to say that some Republican Party members are engaging in hypocrisy regarding the Barrett nomination. They want to use this opportunity to their advantage. Democrats condemn the actions as immoral and unjust, but there is no doubt that if the situation were reversed, they would act just as swiftly.
The circumstances surrounding the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court are unique. The timing and current climate could not be more intense. However, this does not mean that moving forward with the nomination is wrong. The process will undergo adjustments, but ultimately, the Republicans have the Constitution on their side.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
