Friday, March 15, 2019
Moderates count little in partisan world; voters harbor unrealistic hopes
Many voters consider themselves to be political moderates, not partisans on the right or left. To appeal for their votes, candidates claim they can "work across the aisle."
But do voters really favor political leaders who will sometimes vote in line with their wishes and sometimes against them? Is it possible to be a moderate politician, if the "aisle" turns out to be a canyon?
Moderate politics may be one of the grand myths of American politics and more wishful thinking by voters than reality.
A moderate might propose solutions to political issues that yield some satisfaction to each side, but also some dissatisfaction. Compromise might be acceptable, because everybody wins something, just not everything, they sought.
That kind of moderation is only possible if both sides are willing to give some ground. If one side insists on full acceptance of its demands, a moderate politician will fail. In Congress, the extremes of both parties show little willingness to accept anything less than complete victory.
The ideological wings of both parties now have enough seats to block compromise. Though still occasionally possible, it is unusual.
More often, what voters mean by "moderate" is the politician who generally supports their party but may sometimes split with it on key votes. Such a moderate may act independently when responding to their constituents or adhering to a personal principle when they resist party discipline. They may do so, especially if they don't tip the balance.
Some voters believe that on issues mattering a lot to them, the office holder can be counted on to split with their party. When that does not happen, the moderate can quickly be scorned as a mere partisan.
Take the case of Sen. Susan Collins. She provided one of the key votes that saved the Affordable Care Act and opposed some major Trump appointments. She has been considered to be a rare GOP moderate and most likely that is how she sees herself.
Then she voted with her party to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Everything changed. In the eyes of Kavanaugh's opponents, Collins became a loyal Trump supporter, though she had not supported him for president and had routinely backed presidential Supreme Court nominees.
Collins' situation is complicated by Sen. Mitch McConnell, her Republican leader in the Senate. As a member of his party, she inevitably votes to retain him as her Senate leader. But McConnell does not see some major issues as she does.
She is then exposed to his obvious willingness to back Trump and his strict discipline in the Senate, blocking many votes that might embarrass GOP senators. He usually bars compromises, insisting on his way or nothing. Collins may have to go along with him so she can get good Senate committee assignments, which he doles out.
McConnell initially expressed concern about President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to fund the Wall. But when Trump insisted, he changed position without hesitation. Collins had been among Republican senators opposed to the declaration. McConnell simply ignored them. She stuck to her opposition.
Does that make her a moderate? Now set against her, some voters disappointed by her Kavanaugh vote said her latest position was a sham, because she could count on Trump successfully vetoing the resolution disapproving his declaration. Had she supported Trump, she would also have been condemned.
Perhaps this case showed there's no room for moderates in American politics. They cannot create compromises, and independent-minded moderates cannot satisfy some voters unless they act like they belong to the other party. Then, of course, they would not be moderates.
It may also show that voters who say they want moderate politics are either chasing a political ghost or badly missing the excessively partisan nature of today's politics.
Suppose a majority of Maine voters had opposed Kavanaugh and believed his appointment would be the single most important issue before the Senate. By voting for Collins, they had given McConnell great power to steer the Kavanaugh vote.
Of course, that kind of foresight by voters is impossible. We cannot predict what votes or nominees are coming and if a senator will break party discipline on a critical issue – even if the senator is a moderate.
Politicians, even moderates, do not often split from their party. If voters want politicians who will reliably vote in favor of their positions, they may have a better chance if they choose between the parties.
In this age of extreme partisanship, more certainty may only come from voting as a partisan, not as a moderate.
Friday, March 8, 2019
Direct election of president expected, despite bitter opposition
The country has found a politician who
is honest, speaking the truth as he sees it, no matter the
consequences. Paul LePage, the former Republican
governor of Maine, has spoken out against the proposal for popular
election of the president of the United States.
"It saddens me that we're willing
to take everything we stand for and throw it away," LePage said.
"It's only going to be the minorities who would elect."
He continued, "White people will not have anything to say."
Two of the last three presidents,
including Trump, won the electoral vote while losing the popular
vote. That has given a big push to the proposal of having presidents
elected by a majority of American voters.
LePage has said, "I was Donald
Trump before Donald Trump became popular." We are "one of
the same cloth," he said, inviting his listeners to accept him
as an authentic supporter of the president's views.
Unfortunately, the issue has become
partisan. Five times, the U.S. has elected a president supported by
only a minority of voters. All of the losers were Democrats. Not
surprisingly, the GOP opposes the national popular vote proposal.
Many Republicans seek to suppress the
influence of "minority" voters, allowing white voters to
continue to dominate the political process. Electoral voting goes
along with gerrymandering and measures making it more difficult to
register or vote.
These policies amount to a rearguard
action to slow the inevitability that the "minority" –
mainly African Americans, Hispanics, Asians and American Indians –
will soon constitute the majority of the population.
The proposal before Maine and the
country is that states will instruct their presidential electors to
vote for the candidate who has won the popular vote nationally. When
states with 270 electoral votes, a majority, support this approach,
it can come into effect. Right now, less than 100 more electoral
votes are needed.
One complaint about the proposal is
that Maine, a small state, will lose influence. The electoral vote
gives Maine 74/100 of one percent of national voting power. The
national popular vote, based on the 2016 election, would give Maine
56/100 of one percent. Maine's above-average voter turnout would
allow it to retain its modest influence.
We expect every voter to have equal
weight in the democratic process – one person, one vote. Without
the national popular vote, a Wyoming voter has almost four times the
influence of a California voter and counts somewhat more than a Maine
voter.
In both the 2000 and 2016 elections,
Maine voted with the popular majority only to see the loser in the
state gain the presidency. The same was true for California, New
York and other states, which could not have seemed fair to their
majorities. In Maine, despite LePage's worries, the majority was
obviously mostly white people.
In 1787, when the Constitution was
drafted, the Framers showed mistrust of democracy, which they limited
to the House of Representatives. States retained much power. Each
one, no matter its size, got three automatic seats in Congress –
two in the Senate and one in the House. The size of a state's
congressional delegation determines its electoral vote.
Since then, popular democracy has
risen. The Senate is elected by popular vote, not by state
legislatures as it was originally. Women, African Americans and
younger people have been added to the original corps of white men.
National media and a national economy have grown, engaging citizens
across the country.
Under the Constitution, each
presidential election is actually 51 separate elections – the 50
states and D.C. Maine, with its split electoral vote system, shows
that states can act independently in deciding how their electoral
votes will be determined. That is what is now happening.
Jurisdictions with a majority of
electoral votes can decide that the state will allocate its votes to
a national winner. There are now enough states that have seen their
majorities overruled by a popular minority to provide the necessary
270 votes to make the change. There's no need to amend the
Constitution.
Whatever Maine does, the national
popular vote is inevitable. Presidential campaigns are national,
ignoring state lines. Healthcare, federal taxes, immigration,
individual rights, and the economy are addressed nationally not
state-by-state by presidential candidates.
The Republican Party needs to extend
its appeal to a broader constituency rather then trying to suppress
the vote of non-white ethnic groups. It must see that its policies
to discourage voting by new participants in the political process are
not good for the party or for the country.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Healthcare needs reform, not reckless cuts or impossible extremes
In the 2020 election campaign, healthcare looms as a major
issue.
Many Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and
slash Medicare. Eliminating Obama's
signature policy and reducing Medicare are centerpieces of their effort to end Democratic
"big government." They like the
traditional system based mainly on insurance provided by employers.
Many conservatives believe healthcare should be left to
private sector insurance and emergency care.
The U.N. World Health Organization rates U.S. medical services as only average,
except for its top-flight emergency rooms.
The country also ranks first world-wide with the highest healthcare costs.
Medicare gives most older Americans, who lack coverage under
employer plans, regular access to hospital and doctor care. Drug costs are subsidized. If they cannot afford the program's premiums
or co-pays, Medicaid can help.
Under Medicare, people can choose their doctors. In addition to Medicare payments, they either
come up with cash or use supplementary coverage, provided by private
insurers.
Medicare Advantage, a popular form of the program, tempts
insurers to cheat the government by claiming they paid doctors for more care
than they actually did. Last week, the
massive extent of this cheating was revealed, with more bad news expected. Many major insurers appear to be involved.
Congress has blocked Medicare from selecting drugs based on
their price. Suppliers have an incentive
to charge as much as the market will bear, far above actual cost. Their prices are not regulated. They may expect that co-pays would be raised.
Because Medicare covers so many people who might otherwise
have no protection, some Democrats propose universal health insurance –
"Medicare for all." Most
likely, they would propose to fix it first, piling one unlikely promise on top
of another. But it sounds politically
appealing.
This proposal is a form of so-called "single
payer" insurance. A government
agency pays all bills with some co-pays to screen out those not truly ill. "Single payer" raises taxes but
eliminates insurance premiums, and is thus expected to lower net outlays by individuals.
But the cost of hospitals and doctors remains
uncontrolled. The single payer may still
face higher prices. One obvious solution
is that the single payer also employs the doctors and owns the hospitals.
Such a system exists in the U.S. – the Veterans
Administration. Because any system is
only as good as the people who run it, it works better in some places than
others. In Maine, it works well. Full disclosure: I'm a participant.
Because some managers elsewhere falsified their records and
delayed service, the VA system has come under pressure. The Trump Administration's solution is to
make it easier for veterans to use outside doctors at government expense. This outsourcing is part of the GOP effort to
reduce government programs.
The ACA is a hybrid between the traditional insurance system
and a government payer. It is supposed
to control prices through the operation of an open market in which people can
choose their coverage. Insurers are
required to cover more people.
After a recent change, made when the GOP Congress went after
the ACA mandate, individuals no longer must buy insurance or pay a penalty.
If not covered by employer plans, individuals may exercise
their choice through state exchanges in which insurers compete. Originally, a non-profit public option was
proposed in each exchange, but it was blocked by a single senator representing
insurance interests. The obvious fear
was that people would turn the lower-cost public option into a single payer.
The ACA has its problems.
It has survived because of a handful of GOP senators, including Susan
Collins, and Chief Justice John Roberts' swing vote on the U.S. Supreme Court. The lack of cost control and the loss of
required participation make it an imperfect solution.
Recently, a Columbia University expert has suggested that,
instead of the ACA or copying single-payer Canada, the U.S. should consider the
German model, the world's oldest health insurance plan. Less costly than the American system, it uses
a combination of employer, employee and government financing.
Private insurers in Germany are subject to strong regulation,
and they compete on price and quality. An
individual's co-pays are capped at a fixed percent of annual income, less than co-pays
in the U.S.
Americans prefer choice and competition, and the German
system provides it. Government regulates
prices but does not replace insurers. Along
with adding drug price regulation, this plan merits more attention.
Healthcare is an immediate and costly problem. Candidates need to skip anti-government cost-cutting
bravado on the right or unrealistically generous promises on the left and look
for real solutions.
Friday, February 22, 2019
Congress lets president do its job; reform of national emergencies needed
Declaring a national emergency, President Trump's way of
rounding up funds for the Wall, is either a national scandal or a routine
political maneuver. Voters may get to make
their choice.
Whatever it is, the fault for the latest crisis is squarely
owned by Congress. By blithely passing off
its constitutional powers to the president, it is now faced with a president making
the most of the opportunity.
Sen. Lindsay Graham has said that Congress refused to allow
Trump to spend funds in ways it had authorized previous presidents, so he had
to act on his own. That's not how it is
supposed to work. When Congress sets
spending priorities, the president cannot flout that decision just because he
favors another policy.
The problem is not that Congress has rejected more wall-building. The problem is that Congress has given the
president the tool to ignore its constitutional control of federal spending.
Another understanding about how the federal government is
meant to work within the terms of the Constitution has been eliminated. Its disappearance joins a growing list of
evaporating constitutional customs, altering the American system of
government. People voted for change, and
they are getting it.
Presidents have used their power to declare a national
emergency for a wide variety of reasons, from blocking the assets of certain enemies
to prohibiting the import of "blood" diamonds to responding to the
9/11 terrorist attacks.
Trump has been criticized because the immigration threat is
not newly urgent and has been diminishing in recent years.
So why call it a national emergency now? It looks like a mere political ploy. Even so, it takes advantage of the possibly
unjustified precedents established by assertive presidents acting in the
absence of Congress.
What's different about Trump is that he has acted right
after Congress expressly rejected the spending and precisely because of the
congressional rejection. That had not
happened previously. And his declaration
was based on inaccurate or false data.
A national emergency should be an urgent situation that can
be easily recognized by members of Congress and average voters. It should not be a matter of politics, which
this declaration surely is. Consistent
with his approach throughout his presidency, Trump wants to keep the political
promises he made when he ran.
Congress may try to reject his declaration. Much will depend on how Republican senators
vote. There must be enough of them to
override his inevitable veto. It is a
virtual certainty that GOP senators will not abandon their loyalty to their
president, though he shows them no such loyalty.
The declaration has also gone to court. Opponents claim that Trump's action violates
the separation of powers and that he cannot ignore the congressional power of
the purse.
They will expect a
conservative Supreme Court to be more supportive of the Constitution than of
the president. Maybe.
The Court could well refuse to decide the matter. It could simply say that Congress can pass
laws about national emergencies, as it has in the past, leaving it up to the
lawmakers to decide this matter, not the judiciary. It might find that nobody has standing to
make a legal challenge.
Dealing with Trump's declaration or at least future
so-called national emergencies places the issue directly before Congress. Senators Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander of
Tennessee, both Republicans, say they oppose Trump's declaration. They should come forward promptly with a bill
to limit presidential power.
New limits in declaring national emergencies could be
enacted. They might be required to
sunset in two weeks or a month. That
would give Congress the time to consider legislation authorizing further action. These days Congress can reconvene
quickly. There's no need for give the
president a blank check.
This approach could be especially useful where the president
is using funds that had been appropriated for other purposes.
Two classes of emergency might be established, cutting down
on the use of a broad declaration to cover targeted issues. A two-tier approach would reserve the
declaration of a national emergency to events having national effect.
As for the Trump declaration, Congress could ban using any funds
under any appropriation for spending on a border barrier above the level set in
the Homeland Security budget.
Even if
the president vetoed it, the bill would give political wiggle room to
Republicans who want to put some space between themselves and Trump in the 2020
elections.
Reversing Trump would be a declaration that Congress is beginning
to reassert its lawful powers. The Wall
is not what's most important. The
Constitution is.
Friday, February 15, 2019
Supreme Court makes big waves with little orders; Collins gets blame, Roberts gets credit – both mistakes
The Supreme Court has stirred controversy with two procedural orders. They revealed much
about the state of our political world.
In one case, the Court decided to suspend a Louisiana law
that requires doctors performing abortions to be admitted to practice at a
hospital. The law could have the effect
of eliminating all but one of the clinics and doctors providing abortions.
The factual question was whether three doctors could obtain
hospital admission privileges. The state
promised to give them 45 days to try, deferring enforcement of the law. It acknowledged that if only one doctors
remained, that would not satisfactorily protect women's health.
In effect, the Court decision lengthened the 45-day
period. It did not decide on the law itself,
though it will later. Among the five-member
Court majority were the four liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was among the four conservatives
opposing the suspension, but was alone in providing a written explanation. He took no position on the law, but said that
the three doctors should continue performing abortions and make a “good faith
effort” to gain hospital privileges in the 45 day window.
If they did not succeed, a stay suspending the law could
then allow the Court to review the law itself.
In short, he said nothing about supporting the obvious effort to
drastically limit abortions.
Two conclusions immediately emerged from the decision, both
most likely wrong. One was that Sen.
Susan Collins had been fooled when she said Kavanaugh would respect precedent,
presumably the Roe v. Wade decision
allowing abortions. The other was that
Roberts was emerging as the Court' swing vote.
Abortion advocates would not trust Louisiana's assurances
which Kavanaugh had accepted. Because he
was not suspicious, he was complicit.
That meant he opposed Roe. Distrusting any statement from those you
oppose is how politics works these days.
Collins took him at his word in his dissenting opinion. The media reported that opponents of
Kavanaugh's confirmation had “slammed” her with the obvious intent to weaken
her reelection chances.
As for Roberts, as much as we want a new swing vote, he showed
his credentials for the title are limited.
In Alabama, a convicted criminal was slated for execution. A Muslim, he asked for an imam to be present. The state refused, saying only its Christian staff
chaplain may attend. Otherwise, it
claimed, without proof, the event might be unsafe. The state claimed he should have known the
rules, though his request for them had been refused.
The Court of Appeals had suspended the execution so that it
could hear arguments on both sides. The
Supreme Court overruled the lower court and allowed the execution to take
place. The five member majority included
the five conservatives, including the Chief Justice.
Justice Elena Kagan said the decision was a direct violation
of the clause in the Constitution that prevents the government from favoring
any single religion or religion itself. She
said the state's reason for its rule should have been examined in court. After the decision, Alabama quickly banned
any religious counselor from executions.
Roberts had fallen in line with the conservatives, not on
procedure as was the case on abortions, but on a basic constitutional
question. That raised a question about the
quality of his status as swing justice.
Both decisions could affect millions of people. The Court owed people more than the short,
procedural orders, providing little detail and judgment. It left the explanation to the media, which
could easily misinterpret the abortion order, making more out of it than
justified and while ignoring the true meaning of the religion case.
As a result, people were misled or ill-informed. That undermines democracy. The Court deals with the law, but it also
affects the people. It might remember
that.
A note. This column
during the week near Washington's Birthday traditionally is devoted to the
exceptional man who embodied the American nation and was its first president. Because last fall, a column was devoted to
his words, relevant in light of the Pittsburgh massacre, this column does not
focus on him.
But we have heard recently from our current president that
his first two years in office were the greatest in history. In his first two years, George Washington
created the American executive branch of government, balancing conflicting
views. He was well aware that he was
setting precedents that might last as long as the Republic. And he displayed great modesty, even
reticence, at times.
These days, his exceptional accomplishments are worth
remembering, especially in the White House.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Pundits speculate on presidential election like it's a sport
If you follow any major sport, you
probably know about weekly power rankings. Teams are rated on their
recent performance, and their standing may change from week to week.
The ranking supposedly reveals the ultimate winner.
Power rankings have now come to the
presidential campaign. Washington Post pundits plan to rank weekly
all potential candidates, Democrats, Republicans and independents.
But not Donald Trump. Perhaps the Post assumes that he has all the
power he needs to get the GOP nomination.
The presidential campaign is well under
way, starting barely after the latest elections. The pundits are
hard at work, speculating on the latest news. The voters are likely
to be confused.
The congressional races have also
begun. Last week, Sen. Susan Collins' campaign announced her best
fundraising quarter ever. It openly attributed the support, from all
50 states, to her vote in favor the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh
to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh's opponents have
raised a war chest to support whatever candidate opposes Collins, the
expected Republican standard bearer. Money in politics? Here is a
case of money seeking the candidate, not the reverse. It seems clear
that the campaign will be mainly about that one vote by Collins.
There might be as many as 20 Democratic
hopefuls in the presidential race. Inevitably, this campaign crowd
must be seen as reflecting the belief that Trump is vulnerable and
almost any respectable Democrat can beat him. The problem is that's
just what the Democrats thought in 2016, when the result did not
support their optimism.
Only a few of the Democrats have a
platform. The Post's power ranking focuses more on where candidates
fit in their parties, based on their personality and where they hail
from.
Are the Democrats inclined to select a
reformer willing to upset tradition, as young voters supposedly want?
Or will they prefer a candidate who appeals to the white, working
class men who usually line up with the GOP? Is it the right moment
for a woman to be elected, thanks in part to the growing involvement
of women in the political process?
Whatever happens, it would be a mistake
to conclude that the Democrats will end up so badly divided they
cannot win. Unlike the GOP, the Democrats are accustomed to internal
battles and the campaign losers often stick with the party's
candidate.
On the GOP side, Trump seems to be
having trouble finding his footing. He has always relied on the
cheers of his base, the core group of supporters who stick with him
no matter his policy choices. But other Republicans, especially in
the business community, and even some of his core are now becoming
less reliable.
The economy is strong. But if it slows,
as forecast, will Trump still be able to take credit for a boom? The
tax cut has produced only small benefits, but a large deficit, making
it less popular than it was originally.
And he has stumbled. His Wall is not
happening and he looks increasingly desperate. His rebuke of the
government intelligence chiefs backfired, and he admitted that he had
only followed their analysis in the media, when most presidents would
have been briefed by them. The shutdown failed and left him looking
unsympathetic to workers.
Moderate GOP office holders have been
hinting they might run against him in party primaries. But they
would need massive funding and enough support from reluctant
Republicans to defeat Trump in early primaries. Achieving either
seems unlikely unless more of his base washes out.
Of course, the Mueller report may
contain enough damaging information about Trump's involvement with
the Russians in the 2016 campaign that even some of his base deserts
him. His continued coziness with Russia, while the diplomats and
military openly worry, could make him more politically vulnerable.
If Trump weakens or drops out, watch
for an army of GOP candidates. They would test whether the GOP has
permanently abandoned moderate politics to become a party of the far
right.
The political scene is too unsettled
and the primaries are too many months away for television's talking
heads to get much right.
With the campaign under way, it is
worth remembering picking a president is serious business, not a
sport to handicap. Speculation can swamp knowledge. The voter far
from Washington may be treated more like a commodity than as a
citizen.
Conclusion? Don't pay much attention
to the pundits and don't rush to pick a candidate. Plenty of time
remains for candidates to emerge, shine or simply disappear. This is
not a sport.
Friday, February 1, 2019
Picking Supreme Court justices: the lost lesson
Here's a good story that should have
had a sequel.
About 100 days after he suddenly found
himself president of the United States, Harry S Truman had to fill
his first vacancy on the Supreme Court. In 1945, the Court was
composed of seven Democratic appointees and one Republican.
Himself a Democrat, Truman naturally
wanted to reward a member of his own party. He was said to have
considered several possibilities, and the Secretary of Labor claimed
that Truman had promised him the slot.
The Senate had a Democratic majority,
though many Democrats were southern conservatives, often closely
aligned with the Republicans. Truman's advisors urged him to name a
Republican, a move never before made by a Democratic president. He
decided to follow their advice.
He finally settled on Sen. Harold H.
Burton of Ohio. Burton had been a member of the Truman Commission,
the watchdog body that fought wasteful military spending during World
War II. Truman found him thoughtful and honest. Above all he
supported the role of Congress in lawmaking and a limited role for
the Court.
Burton, a former mayor of Cleveland was
originally from Massachusetts and a Bowdoin College graduate. He was
nominated and confirmed in a single day. The Democrats supported
their president and the GOP supported a Republican. Above all,
senators readily supported one of their own.
The new justice was no legal theorist,
but he was an effective and respected jurist. Few would ever know
that Chief Justice Earl Warren had allied himself with Burton, a
long-time opponent of racial segregation. Together, they carefully
forged the unanimous Court that ended school segregation and
"separate, but equal."
Fast forward to 2016. The sudden death
of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the Court. President
Obama sought to replace the conservative justice with a more moderate
jurist. But the Senate was controlled by Republicans who wanted to
replace Scalia with an exact copy.
Obama nominated a highly qualified
judge, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told him face to
face, that he would block any Obama nominee. He expected the GOP
would win the presidency, though a Republican could not take office
for about a year. He intended to keep the seat vacant until then.
While nobody doubted the qualifications
of Judge Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee, nobody could reasonably
expect him to be confirmed. Obama was reluctant to retreat in the
face of McConnell's obstinacy. The White House seemed frozen.
This scenario worried supporters of the
Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which had affirmed that
abortions are legal. With a new Scalia, the threat of the Court
reversing that decision might remain a real possibility.
The problem was not about Obama
refusing to back down. It was about his failure to try to
outmaneuver McConnell. Obama was not Truman.
If Obama had followed Truman's action,
he might have ended up with a new justice who was favorable to Roe
v. Wade. How?
Obama might have appointed a Republican
senator to the Court. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is rated as a
moderate who supports Roe. Her appointment would place on the
Court its only justice without an Ivy League law school degree, which
could add to her appeal. And it would be a first for Alaska.
Would McConnell block consideration of
her nomination? Senatorial courtesy plus party loyalty would have
virtually required him to let her enter the confirmation process.
She would have access to make her case with her colleagues at any
time, a privilege that was denied to Garland.
Allowing her to move the Court would
have been a major boost for the GOP, which faces declining support
from women.
If Murkowski had gone to the Court, she
would have left one less appointment for President Trump to pick off
the list of conservatives given to him. Even if he appointed a
conservative when the next vacancy occurred, Murkowski could have
become the swing vote on the Court.
Obama would have produced change, as he
had promised. Even in the unlikely case Murkowski rejected the
appointment or was denied confirmation, Obama would have made a
gesture to provide the kind of cooperation that voters have said they
want.
In the 2016 election campaign, the
question of the Supreme Court vacancy faded from view, becoming a
non-issue. If Obama had sought to appoint a Republican woman to the
Court, he may well have enhanced the chances for his own party in the
presidential and congressional elections.
Lacking this move, Harold Burton
remains the only Republican appointed to the Court by a Democratic
president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)