Monday, October 26, 2020

Dear Senator Murkowski:

[I got an email saying to write my Senators about the Supreme Court nomination, so I wrote Senator Murkowski, even though she already said she would vote to confirm.  I know that as a Republican she's under great pressure to vote yes.  It's easy for all of us without that pressure to fault her.  And I do believe she's wrong.  But I also have taught ethics to graduate students and public officials.  It's MUCH easier to decide another person's ethical decision than it is to make our own.  When everything one has worked for is threatened, it's often hard to do 'the right thing.'  I advised my students to save up, as fast as they could, a year's salary so that when they are asked to do something illegal and/or unethical, they could refuse, knowing that they had a year to find another job.  

What I wanted to emphasize in this letter is that the Republicans have totally messed up the process of nominating Supreme Court justices.  The Federalist Society and others have spent 40 years or so focused on developing a theory of law that would favor the interests of corporations and people with lots of money.  The Democrats missed what was happening for way too long - that was there mistake.  But McConnell's holding up of Obama judges and the Merrick Garland, messed with fair play.  He could do that not because it was right, but because he had the votes.  

So this is what I ended up sending Senator Murkowski yesterday]:

I realize your decision to vote for Amy Coney Barrett was not an easy one and that my voice will have no impact on that decision.

But this is so important I feel compelled to write anyway.  

In the past, most Supreme Court justices were confirmed with comfortable majorities, with many if not most members from both parties voting for them.  It was only when Republicans started voting Federalist Society influenced candidates, who were far to the right and did not represent the views of the American public, that  bi-partisan votes ended.  And it has only been a few times.  (not sure the chart below will show up properly. If not, it's from the US Senate website here:  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm)


Nominee

To Replace

Nominated*

Vote**

Result & Date***

President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy ConeyGinsburgSep 29, 2020
Kavanaugh, BrettKennedyJul 10, 201850-48  No.  223COct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M.ScaliaFeb 1, 201754-45  No.  111CApr 7, 2017
President Obama, Barack 
Garland, Merrick B. ScaliaMar 16, 2016N
Kagan, ElenaStevensMay 10, 201063-37  No.  229CAug 5, 2010
Sotomayor, SoniaSouterJun 1, 200968-31  No.  262CAug 6, 2009
President Bush, George W. 
Alito, Samuel A., Jr.O'ConnorNov 10, 200558-42  No.  2CJan 31, 2006
Miers, HarrietO'ConnorOct 7, 2005WOct 28, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.1RehnquistSep 6, 200578-22  No.  245CSep 29, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.O'ConnorJul 29, 2005WSep 6, 2005
President Clinton, Bill 
Breyer, Stephen G. BlackmunMay 17, 199487-9  No.  242CJul 29, 1994
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader WhiteJun 22, 199396-3  No.  232CAug 3, 1993
President Bush, George H.W. 
Thomas, Clarence MarshallJul 8, 199152-48  No.  220COct 15, 1991
Souter, David H. BrennanJul 25, 199090-9  No.  259COct 2, 1990
President Reagan, Ronald 
Kennedy, Anthony M. PowellNov 30, 198797-0  No.  16CFeb 3, 1988
Bork, Robert H. PowellJul 7, 198742-58  No.  348ROct 23, 1987
Scalia, Antonin RehnquistJun 24, 198698-0  No.  267CSep 17, 1986
Rehnquist, William H. 2BurgerJun 20, 198665-33  No.  266CSep 17, 1986
O'Connor, Sandra DayStewartAug 19, 198199-0  No.  274CSep 21, 1981
President Ford, Gerald 
Stevens, John Paul DouglasNov 28, 197598-0  No.  603CDec 17, 1975
President Nixon, Richard 
Rehnquist, William H. HarlanOct 22, 197168-26  No.  450CDec 10, 1971
Powell, Lewis F., Jr.BlackOct 22, 197189-1  No.  439CDec 6, 1971
Blackmun, Harry FortasApr 15, 197094-0  No.  143CMay 12, 1970
Carswell, G. Harrold FortasJan 19, 197045-51  No.  122RApr 8, 1970
Haynsworth, Clement, Jr.FortasAug 21, 196945-55  No.  154RNov 21, 1969
Burger, Warren 3WarrenMay 23, 196974-3  No.  35CJun 9, 1969






















When Supreme Court justices are confirmed on strict party lines, it projects a clear 

problem for the credibility of the court.  I know you said that now you are voting on the qualifications of the candidate, but clearly the process is still a serious problem when you will have a justice who was opposed by all the Democratic Senators who represent far more US citizens than do the Republican Senators.  From a 2018 article (https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-senate-is-so-rigged-that-democrats-may-never-control-it-ever-again-14ede9ac5f01/):


 "In the outgoing Senate — the Senate that placed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court — the 49 senators in the Democratic “minority” represent almost 40 million more people than the Republican “majority.” In the incoming Senate, the Democratic “minority” will still represent millions more people — despite the fact that Republicans grew their “majority” last night."


The removal of the cloture rule in court cases in general and Supreme Court cases in particular has meant that judges who are acceptable by at least some members of the minority party is no longer necessary.  


I would argue that these are procedural issues that are destroying the credibility of the US Supreme Court, just as the Congress' credibility has been seriously harmed in recent years.  


Voting Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court with only Republican votes moves the US government to further dysfunction.  The tactics of Majority Leader McConnell to not allow Obama court vacancies to be filled - including the outrageous maneuvering over Merrick Garland and then the even more outrageous change of "principle" to approve Barrett in the middle of voting.  This reveals McConnell as simply ignoring democracy and using the power he's accumulated - including changing the cloture rule - to force one more far right Republican justice onto the court.  And it will force Democrats to use similar kinds of actions to reestablish a US Supreme Court that is more in line with the values of the US population and interpretations of the Constitution that value individual human rights over the rights of multinational corporations.  And Republicans will loudly cry foul, as Democrats are doing now.


I've voiced my approval of actions you've take as Senator when they represented my values and I've voiced my disappointment with other actions you've taken.  

I know you walk a thin line, and I don't know that if you voted against Barrett it would even be enough to block her appointment.  But I'm extremely disappointed now at your decision and ask you to reconsider it, given that her appointment will mean all out warfare between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for years to come.



[This won't (perhaps hasn't by now) changed Murkowski's vote, but it does mean to me that Alaskan Democrats will need to find a strong candidate to run in 2022.  I suspect that fact that she showed doubts at all, made her persona non grata among the Republicans and they will find an alternative candidate in the Republican primary.  Though we are voting on a proposition this election that would change our voting to Ranked Choice.  If it passes the control of the parties will be weakened.  So everything is up in the air.  Even the removal of a demented president is being left to the public because the Senate Republicans didn't have the integrity to do the job themselves.  Any private corporation would have removed a CEO like Trump - either by gently by taking away his powers, or by firing him.  The Republican  Senators couldn't do that.  They have no credibility.   


And, by the way, it didn't seem worth the effort to even copy this and email it to my other Senator Dan Sullivan.]

4 comments:

  1. I have pretty resigned to the fact that Murkowski, Sullivan, or any of the other Republicans, would vote to confirm anyone Trump selected....even Judge Roy Moore.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Murkowski got a huge leg up in politics because of her Father, right? In some states just having an R behind your name qualifies you for a state job and a chance to swill public largesse. Then it is on to bigger and fancier troughs to swill from.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.