There’s nothing wrong with being a partisan. It’s the lazy part that’s galling.
Via How Appealing, we have this ridiculous John Nichols article in the Madison, Wis., Cap Times: “Baldwin Right to Oppose Judicial Pick.”
Now the Cap Times is a progressive organ and Tammy Baldwin is a progressive senator, so it’s not surprising that both oppose replacing Judge Diane Sykes with another conservative. Water is wet.
What’s ridiculous is the justification given for doing so. Leave aside Nichols’s drive-by assertion that Rebecca Taibleson was “[c]riticized by both conservatives and liberals.” (The only credible conservatives who criticized her pulled down their mendacious letter after her hearing.)
Per Nichols, the real reason Baldwin is opposing Taibleson, supposedly, is a “cavalier approach to judicial precedents.” We know this because, according to Baldwin, “In Ms. Taibleson’s confirmation hearing, she refused to say that Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples, was decided correctly. This comment came as she said that other cases that had come before the court were decided correctly.”
Do you know who else refused to say that Obergefell was decided correctly, while saying that “other cases that had come before the court” were? Ketanji Brown Jackson, that’s who.
Former Senator Ben Sasse asked Jackson a series of questions about precedent. Here’s what she said in response to whether or not Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided: “Loving v. Virginia is one of three exceptions to the general principle that a judge should not comment on the Supreme Court’s precedents. . . . Therefore, just as other nominees for judicial office and other sitting federal judges have done, I can confirm that Loving was rightly decided without calling into question my duties under the Code of Conduct.”
So far so good. Now here’s Taibleson in her hearing: “Yes, I agree that Loving v. Virginia is correct.”
Moving on, what did Jackson say when asked if Obergefell was correctly decided? “Consistent with the positions taken by other pending judicial nominees, it is my testimony that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits or demerits of the Supreme Court’s binding precedents.”
And Taibleson: “Along with my fellow former nominees, I can’t give Obergefell a thumbs up or a thumbs down.”
Oh.
Baldwin further expressed concern that “Ms. Taibleson also said that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and stripped women of their right to an abortion, is settled law.” But . . . it is.
And you know who agrees? The most left-wing Biden judges, that’s who. Here’s Julie Rikelman (the lawyer who argued Dobbs on behalf of the abortionists) on whether it’s “settled law”: “Yes, it is binding Supreme Court precedent.” Sparkle Sooknanan, perhaps Trump’s most partisan opponent on the district courts, also said yes. I’m sure this weighed heavily on Baldwin as she voted for them both.
Far from having “taken the confirmation process seriously,” Baldwin is just being a lazy partisan. There’s nothing wrong with being a partisan. It’s the lazy part that’s galling: Lazy from Baldwin, lazy from Nichols, and lazy from anyone who credits their opinions on Taibleson as having value.