Watched the documentary "RBG" last night. It shows her 1993 confirmation hearing. GOP Senator Orrin Hatch is heard saying she is a "liberal" appointee of a "liberal" president, but that her qualifications are apparent. The GOP could have filibustered, but she was confirmed 96-3.
The scene illustrates a difference between 1993 and the Supreme Court fights of today. Partisanship evolved from being one factor in politics to being the sole factor. Officials once viewed themselves as having duties to the nation, separate from an above partisan interests.
In 2020, the president draws no such distinction. This is not an accusation; he's open about it. Anyone who separates duty from partisanship is branded a liar or a fool--such as Jeff Sessions, the attorney general who thought he owed a duty to his office and the Constitution.
Partisanship is also Mitch McConnell's rationalization for blocking Merrick Garland in 2016 while pushing ahead with Trump's nominee in 2020. Obviously, McConnell says, he is in the Senate to support Republicans in election years while blocking Democrats. It's tradition, he says.
And of course he's right that partisans have always been partisan, and that one may always find precedents for partisanship. The question is just how far it's wise to push this, and whether an American elected official owes a duty to anything else.
Lindsey Graham, who would chair any hearings for the nominee, held on to the idea of an official duty longer than others. He voted for two Obama Supreme Court nominees, for example, largely in the Orrin Hatch tradition. He also promised never to do what he is now doing.
Graham's rationalization for his complete reversal is partisanship: Democrats were unfair in the past, so Graham says the rules have changed and it's okay for him to change course too.
Democrats, of course, have also switched positions on election-year nominees, and part of their reasoning resembles Graham's: Republicans conducted partisan warfare on judges in the past, and have never been held to account for their unfairness to Garland and Obama in 2016.
This thread does not pass judgment either way on McConnell's course, or Trump's. The nomination has the support of Mitt Romney, who has shown himself willing to stand apart. The point is that recent events have obscured the idea of an official duty higher than partisanship.
It wasn't always so. McConnell sits at the desk of Henry Clay of Kentucky, a fierce partisan (he founded his own political party, the Whigs!) who was often self-interested. Yet Clay also viewed himself as a statesman with a duty to make compromises and advance national interests.
Clay's admirers included Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. Lincoln was a clever and strategic party man, yet appointed Democrats to his cabinet because they could help keep the country together and were competent; one, Edwin Stanton, was among the most competent.
McConnell also once served in the Senate alongside Orrin Hatch, who was a sharp-elbowed partisan, but also cultivated a friendship with Ted Kennedy. And voted in favor of confirming Ruth Bader Ginsburg because, though she was of a different party, she was qualified.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How could so many people believe Trump’s claims about the 2020 election after so much evidence exposed the lies? History offers an answer. open.substack.com/pub/steveinske…
This is the latest of my regular emails—on our divided past and present. Subscribe at: steveinskeep.substack.com
“Nativist power faded and grew over time, but never vanished. It’s always been a culture war. At first it pitted native-born Protestants against largely Irish Catholics. In later times, nativists turned against Muslims or people of color.”
This is the latest of ny regular emails, which I propose to send directly to you. Take a free or paid subscription here:
.steveinskeep.substack.com
“Brands weaves in stories and perspectives I never knew… We first learn of the Battle of the Little Bighorn neither from the soldiers’ perspective nor from that of the coalition of warriors who confronted them, but from a young woman who saw and heard the fight.”
“Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause [his election] by illegitimate electors.” Courts will decide if it was a crime, but as a list of facts, it all happened.
The indictment lists officials Trump's personally appointed who told him he lost: DOJ leaders; the director of national intelligence; DHS cybersecurity officials; White House lawyers; his own campaign officials; his own Vice President. Again as a list of facts, this all happened.
More from the list of Trump's own aides and allies who informed him that his claims were false. The definition of a lie is when you know it's not true.
“A free Black man urged Jefferson to live up to his words. In 1848, women drafted a “Declaration of Sentiments;” in the 1880’s, populist farmers declared independence from corporate monopolies. In 1961, delegates from native tribes, approved the Declaration of Indian Purpose.”
“The control of republics depends on the number, not the quality, of the voters. This is not a government of saints. It has a large sprinkling of sinners.” - Thaddeus Stevens
What would Lincoln do? A friend who read a draft of Differ We Must reports thinking of it when dealing with difficult relatives!
The book reconstructs sixteen times Lincoln confronted people he differed with, and tried to make progress. Preorder: penguinrandomhouse.com/books/670070/d…
Jacinda Ardern's resignation in New Zealand drew more attention, but the fall of Vietnam's president is meaningful, as we heard from @bill_hayton on @MorningEdition@NPR. The US counts on Vietnam as a trading partner and potential counterweight to China. npr.org/2023/01/19/114…
Vietnam's Communist Party pushed out the president for a corruption scandal, but Hayton sees something bigger: "The public security ministry and the Communist Party hardliners [are] really using these corruption scandals to push out the more liberal wing of the party."
Conservatives are aiming "to reinstate Party control... a bit like what's been happening in China, where Xi Jinping has been using corruption scandals to get rid of his enemies. The idea that the people left in power are not corrupt is just not credible."