The dictionary definition of the word “illegitimate” is “unlawful,” “illegal,” or “beyond the custom or law.”
“I believe that the whole process has been illegitimate,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer last week of President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Former presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren echoed his feelings: “We need to treat this nomination like the illegitimate power grab [that] it is.”
Sorry to say this, but this reaction is deranged and mistaken. All of the steps taken by Trump after the passing of Ginsburg are the very definition of the word “legal.” It was legal to move to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat as quickly as possible.
It was legal and well-precedented for Trump to fill a seat held by a Democratic appointee with someone from his own party. Trump was under no obligation to put off his choice until an election a month and a half after Ginsburg’s death. He was under no obligation to refrain from making an appointment until inauguration day. No such requirement appears in the Constitution.
When the Constitution was written, people thought the court would not be political. It really wasn’t, at least not as we understand the term now, until Roe made its appearance. It would have been much more convenient for Democrats had Ginsburg not died until the election was over, or a new Senate and commander-in-chief had been seated, but God doesn’t act in the interests of parties, as we all should have learned long ago.
The Constitution states that, in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy, a president may fill it quickly by sending a nomination to the Senate, which can then vote on it. So far, Judge Barrett’s nomination fits well within these parameters.
Democrats, over the years, have succeeded in dialing down the number of votes required to end Senate debate on nominations — from two-thirds of the Senate to three-fifths of the Senate, to half of the Senate, plus one. Each time the Democrats get into trouble, they alter the rules to their needs of the moment. And each time the Republicans gain by the use of the rules that the Democrats gave them, the Democrats shriek and complain.
Now, with the Right soon to be on the right side of a six-to-three split on the nine-member court, will the Democrats ever regret this race-to-the-bottom that they started? Or will they change the rules again, suffer the consequences again later, and allow this to go on without end?
