Supreme Court Fights Are What Republican Majorities Are For

There are times, in politics, for taking half a loaf. There are times for banking your winnings. There are times for retreating to defensible ground. There are times for building political capital for the future. There are even times for taking counsel of your fears. But a political party that never, ever tries to deliver on its core promises will sooner or later lose its voters, and it will deserve to do so. This is one of those times. If Senate Republicans do not throw everything they have at confirming a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, the Republican Party’s voters can, will, and should conclude that the party never will earn the votes, the labors, the money, and the trust they have been given these past five decades.

There are risks in this strategy, as there are risks in any strategy aimed at accomplishing anything significant in American politics. But the risks of not going forward are greater. Putting a good justice on the Court, rather than risking letting a bad one be appointed, is the right thing to do. Sometimes, you let bad things happen because a more important principle is at stake, but there is no principled basis now for refusing to do the right thing. As I have illustrated in depth, historical precedent supports a Senate majority in confirming election-year or even lame-duck Supreme Court nominees if it wants to. Similarly, precedent four years ago supported the Senate in refusing to confirm an election-year nominee when the voters had elected a Senate majority opposed to the president. In order to decline to exercise their constitutional power to confirm a nominee, Senate Republicans would have to invent a brand-new precedent. Their voters would be right in seeing this as a betrayal driven by cowardice.

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

There are times, in politics, for taking half a loaf. There are times for banking your winnings. There are times for retreating to defensible ground. There are times for building political capital for the future. There are even times for taking counsel of your fears. But a political party that never, ever tries to deliver on its core promises will sooner or later lose its voters, and it will deserve to do so. This is one of those times. If Senate Republicans do not throw everything they have at confirming a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, the Republican Party’s voters can, will, and should conclude that the party never will earn the votes, the labors, the money, and the trust they have been given these past five decades.

There are risks in this strategy, as there are risks in any strategy aimed at accomplishing anything significant in American politics. But the risks of not going forward are greater. Putting a good justice on the Court, rather than risking letting a bad one be appointed, is the right thing to do. Sometimes, you let bad things happen because a more important principle is at stake, but there is no principled basis now for refusing to do the right thing. As I have illustrated in depth, historical precedent supports a Senate majority in confirming election-year or even lame-duck Supreme Court nominees if it wants to. Similarly, precedent four years ago supported the Senate in refusing to confirm an election-year nominee when the voters had elected a Senate majority opposed to the president. In order to decline to exercise their constitutional power to confirm a nominee, Senate Republicans would have to invent a brand-new precedent. Their voters would be right in seeing this as a betrayal driven by cowardice.