[NY Times] How the Paul Watford Nomination Destroyed Mitch McConnell

[Sovereign]

 

A Warning for the GOP: How the Paul Watford Nomination Destroyed Mitch McConnell

By Alex Fakhouri

 

Quote

Two hundred and ninety two electoral votes later, and several million votes later, Xiomara de la Cruz has been elected the first woman to serve as the President of the United States. In what was a momentous occasion for the country, President de la Cruz took to the podium, promising a vision of hope for millions of Americans - both men and women - who came out to the polls looking for a change in their lives. Democrats and Republicans alike came together in a moment to celebrate the historic occasion, and, for a moment, it seemed like the nation saw a glimmer of unity.

 

Then, things went back to normal on Capitol Hill. The talking points resumed, and every politician and pundit rushed back to their tent to wage battle on the issues that defined their campaigns. Among these issues that loomed large over the 2016 election was the nomination of Judge Paul Watford to the Supreme Court of the United States, following the death of Antonin Scalia. The nomination was widely critiqued by GOP politicians, who insisted on popular sovereignty to rule on the nomination at the polls in an oddly unprecedented, but in theory a noble principle. At the center of this fight laid one man: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

 

"The American people should have their choice in November regarding who will nominate a successor to the late-Antonin Scalia," said Senator McConnell in comments later echoed by fellow Senate Republicans, including successor Cliff Fleming. "We have been consistent on this and the nomination of Judge Watford does not change that."

 

Senator McConnell's disagreements with then-President Obama and Democratic leadership remain well-documented, with the former floor leader infamously remarking in 2010 that "the single most important thing [Senate Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." From the beginning, their relationship was marked by a confrontational relationship, whether it involved his opposition to the Affordable Care Act and consumer protection legislation, the habitual opposition to judicial nominees, or the leveraging of the nation's debt ceiling to force political gains. The Republican resistance to the Watford nomination, relying on a cherry-picked interpretation of 25-year old comments made by then-Senator Joe Biden, should've come as no surprise to anyone, given the trajectory of where we were headed.

 

"Presidents Taft, Wilson, Hoover, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt, [Lyndon B.] Johnson and Reagan have all had their nominees considered in a Presidential election year," argued Indiana Senator John Carlsen. "My recommendation is still that the President and Senate Majority come together to find a way forward."

 

Suffice to say, the American people agreed. The 2016 election was a lot of things, but one thing no one could claim is that Mitch McConnell was a winner. Not in the slightest. A seven-seat loss for the GOP sent a loud message that the American people, for better or worse, were on the side of President Obama and Judge Watford. It remains clear Senator McConnell staked his entire political career on this gambit, and he lost resoundingly—so much so that even fellow Kentucky Senator William Whitaker committed his support to Judge Watford following the election.

 

With the election over, the time for completing the nomination has come. Judge Paul Watford, remaining battle-tested by the scrutiny of the election, and thoroughly vetted through previous appointments, was renominated by the President. He remains incredibly popular with the American people. In short, on paper, he should be a shoe-in for the nomination.

 

So, what's happened since then?

 

What's happened since McConnell acolyte Cliff Fleming took the reins in the Senate? What happened since the Freedom Caucus ousted most of House GOP leadership from power for being so-called "RINOs"? What happened since the GOP further embraced the extremism and partisanship fostered by Senator McConnell?

 

They doubled down, of course.

 

Republicans have only intensified their efforts to block the Watford nomination, and the more they talk about him, the more it should become clear to the American people that the veneer of popular sovereignty was never a principled belief more than it was a convenient shield against criticism.

 

"Watford's entire career is thanks to Affirmative Action," said Senator Jason Roy of South Carolina, in a statement on social media. "Now he wants to enshrine illegals with the same rights as working people who actually contribute to our country and were born here. It's utterly ridiculous!"

 

The remarks were so incendiary that they drew a sharp rebuke from RNC Chair Charles Walker, who insisted "there's plenty of reasons to oppose Judge Watford being resubmitted to the Senate and his skin color isn't one of them." Despite this, the comments were largely defended by Senator Roy's GOP colleagues, despite acknowledgement of their racial insensitivity. Among the chorus was Senate Minority Leader Cliff Fleming, who justified Americans "can’t get mad when you play the race card and they respond."

 

That's right. After all this time, Judge Watford's big crime is being a qualified black man daring to step into a conservative justice's shoes.

Meanwhile, Senator David Stewart of Pennsylvania and Senator James Cambridge of Iowa put forward more tepid—and dare I say infantilizing—defenses of Senator Roy. According to Senator Stewart, true leaders should not call out hate when they see it. Trust Senator Roy, says Senator Cambridge. He has a good heart. He just "let his passion get the best of him."

 

And what passion is that, exactly?

 

It is at this moment I am reminded of Justice Scalia himself. I can't say I always agreed with his decisions, or his judicial philosophy. However, one cannot say ill of his character, or ability to hear dissenting viewpoints. His personal friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was well documented. Perhaps one of his most famous decisions was the ruling of Texas v. Johnson, where Scalia broke with the Court's conservative bloc to uphold the right of free speech.

 

"If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag," Scalia said. "But I am not king."

 

Can the GOP of today claim that same level of integrity? The partisan blockades and ideological purity tests of the McConnell era seem to clash with the principles of the very man they seek to replace—and there’s no indication that’s going away anytime soon. Make no mistake: the ongoing battle for Scalia's seat isn't about popular sovereignty, protecting American's rights, or upholding the Constitution. It's about politics, slogans, and ultimately power.

 

Scalia was never a conservative king. We shouldn't replace him with one.