We stand at a crossroads of a temporarily derailed, supposedly much desired far right brawl with Democrats over the latest Supreme Court nominee. History will record this anticipated sideshow of rampant political animosity, in the most inappropriate of venues, as among the best examples of ultra-conservative hypocrisy. How is it that the very people most insistent on a candidate who interprets the Constitution from a rear-view mirror, purist, reflection of the founding fathers’ admirable intentions are the most anxious to surround the new candidate’s nomination proceedings with a three-ring-circus of current political angst? Surely they would disapprove.
The whole thing bespeaks of a preschool bully mentality. The main purpose is to visibly take over the yard. It’s much like planning a beautiful wedding and inviting the chain gang from a neighboring prison as guests. The bride is likely to get mauled and the groom hospitalized.
If the Democrats fall for this one – are suckered into low blows - they’ll be letting the bullies call the shots -- in political power parlance, employ their own "regimes of truth." Besides, being predictable is the kiss of death in persuasion and politics of any type. Allowing the other side to make you look petulant and desperate is exactly what’s desired here. I vote for the high road – but not the quiet one (we’ve had enough of that) and not the erudite one. Here the high road is calling the anticipated attacks what they are – an attempt to ambush process with political turpitude, an understandable yet deplorable effort to regain pride lost in their party’s recent unfortunate events, and to belittle and demean any form of disagreement, which the hearings are intended to give voice. Then, if the entire process hasn’t sunk beneath contempt, I’d try quoting a few justices who actually understood that strict interpretation of the Constitution without regard for modern-day consequences is as ignorant as holding a political mugging at a Supreme Court Justice hearing.
“Moral philosophers may debate whether certain inequalities are absolute wrongs, but history makes clear that constitutional principles of equality, like constitutional principles of liberty, property and due process, evolve over time; what once was a ‘natural’ and ‘self-evident’ ordering later comes to be seen as an artificial and invidious constraint on human potential and freedom.”
What do you say? If we’re going to fight, let’s not be led by our noses into a vicious political foray - the province of thugs. Instead, let’s debate the meaning of these wise words and how Samuel Alito measures up. Bring in Justice Brennan's view of equality as "the noblest mission of judges." Then, let’s borrow strength from Marshall again – when silence is too great among those who disagree, pluralistic ignorance becomes pluralistic knowledge - as we are quite close to that frightening eventuality. Thus armed, the Democrats (and any Republicans tired of the charade) should be, as it’s now or never, a force with which to be reckoned.
Note: The post nomination spin is quick becoming that it's the liberals who are looking for a fight. And so the maneuvering of reality begins and it will be, if this strategy works, the liberals who'll come to look like the bullies. All part of a day's work in politics.