Immediately after the Senate voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, Democrats attacked the process and its result as “illegitimate.” But Democrats know just as well as the rest of us that there was nothing unfair or unconstitutional about Barrett’s confirmation. They’re just upset it happened.
The Constitution gives the Senate not only the right but the responsibility to fill judicial vacancies as soon as the legislative body is able and willing. With Barrett’s confirmation, that’s exactly what the Republican-led Senate did. Democrats, however, wanted the Senate to wait until after next week’s election, citing Republicans’ past opposition to Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016. And because the Senate did not wait, Democrats are now crying foul play.
Here are just a few examples:
A vote for Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to rubber stamp an illegitimate process, carried out against the wishes of the majority of the nation, against the backdrop of a deadly crisis that Senate Republicans have ignored as Americans have died.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) October 26, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett was an illegitimate nominee, will be an illegitimate justice and, until actions are taken to restore fairness to the Supreme Court, any rulings made will be considered illegitimate.
— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) October 27, 2020
Today Republicans denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process—all in their effort to gut the Affordable Care Act and strip health care from millions with pre-existing conditions.
We won’t forget this.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 27, 2020
In other words, Democrats would like you to think the Senate’s decision to fulfill its constitutional role is “illegitimate” because they were not the ones in charge of it. There is no other explanation because both the Constitution and historical precedent support Barrett’s confirmation. The norm is clear: When the Senate and White House are united, the president’s nominee is almost always confirmed, regardless of whether it is an election year. But when the government is of divided partisanship and a presidential election is upcoming, the Senate usually withholds its consent, as it did when former President Barack Obama nominated Garland.
Moreover, this is what the Senate was elected to do. Voters handed Republicans additional Senate seats during the midterm election in part because the GOP promised to fill the courts with conservative judges and justices. If voters wanted Democrats to block President Trump’s future judicial appointments, they would have elected Democrats instead. But they did not.
So, no, Barrett’s confirmation was not “illegitimate.” And anyone arguing otherwise is a sore loser — or, worse, a sore loser who wants to change the rules so that they never lose again.
