Boycott-Barrett Ploy Shows Difference Between Democrats and Republicans By Andrew C. McCarthy
It makes no sense to participate in the testimonial hearings that prove the nominee is highly qualified but then not show up for the vote.
I n a final infantile stunt, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats boycotted this morning’s vote on passing Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination out of committee and onto the floor. Barring some unforeseen setback, she is going to be confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court by early next week.
The boycott was a pointless gesture because Republicans had the votes necessary to move Judge Barrett’s nomination forward. It was a radical break with democratic norms, by which we register dissent by voting nay, not by picking up our ball and going home like poorly raised children. Having crossed yet another Rubicon, Democrats will eventually learn, at some point when it really costs them (as has their eradication of the filibuster in confirmations), that what goes around comes around. And practically speaking, the boycott was self-destructive, coming only after the nominee had impressed Americans for two days with her intellect, poise, and good nature. Today, no one much missed them at a committee vote that was a foregone conclusion. Everyone, however, was watching on the two days when the Democrats deigned to show up, and Barrett reduced them to an intramural competition for coveted Ass-Clown of the Year honors.
Therein lies a telling difference between the two parties. To win, Republicans must be sound in pursuing their strategies because the media oppose them at every turn. They are thus fortunate to be led by a superb tactician, Senator Mitch McConnell. Democrats, by contrast, are cheered on by the media in pursuing their strategies, regardless of whether they are sharp or daft. They are thus spared the criticism that disciplines politicians to plan carefully.
If you’re the Democrats, and you’re willing to employ such extreme measures as boycotting hearings to try to stop Barrett, then the time to boycott is when she testifies. The point would be to prevent her from impressing the country with her temperament and legal acumen. By such a ploy, it might have been possible to delay the hearing — and delays that could defer a final vote on Barrett until after Election Day are Democrats’ only realistic shot at killing it.
To be sure, Democrats do not control the committee and probably could not have prevented Barrett’s testimony. But if they’d boycotted it, and chairman Lindsey Graham had nevertheless pressed ahead with the hearing, Barrett’s testimony could not have been as effective. Yes, Barrett would still have been Barrett. What made her superior qualities truly shine through, though, was the way she held up against hostile Democratic questioning. Her sheer excellence palpably frustrated Democrats as the hearing went on, leading to some memorably bizarro performances, particularly by Senators Mazie Hirono and Sheldon Whitehouse.
Boycotting the hearing would have involved tough choices — something Democrats rarely have to consider, with a compliant press always willing to put a positive spin on even their most indefensible moves. So they talk crazy about Court-packing, and when the polling cuts against them, they try to redefine what Court-packing means. They think maybe they can portray “handmaiden” Barrett as a dangerous religious zealot, but then they’re reminded that they played that card at her Seventh Circuit confirmation, to disastrous effect. They convince themselves that the hearing will be a win-win for them: They’ll depict Barrett as Trump’s stealth weapon to invalidate Obamacare, while simultaneously making an effective campaign argument about Trump’s weakness on health care. But then the good ship Wishful Thinking crashes into the iceberg of reality: The baseless contention that Barrett is hostile to the Affordable Care Act gets no traction, and whatever good their health-care campaign messaging does is easily outweighed by Barrett’s stellar performance.
In the end, all Democrats accomplish by their hearing antics is a swing in the polling. A widening majority of Americans have concluded that Barrett is terrific. In fact, they’d like to see her confirmed.
Maybe this would have happened anyway because Barrett is unusually talented. Still, Democrats never made up their collective mind about what their strategic priority was, and thus did not settle on tactics designed to achieve it.
Contrast this with Republicans in 2016, when they were challenged by President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death.
As should have been the Democrats’ calculation with Barrett, there was nothing spiteful in Senate Republicans’ opposition to Garland. Politically, he is a centrist Democrat, so undoubtedly he’d have been with the Court’s liberals on kulturkampf issues. But he was rightly regarded as a good man. He earned a reputation for law-and-order seriousness as a prosecutor and Clinton Justice Department official; and he is a fair and competent judge on a very distinguished bench — the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Comments are closed.
