Saturday, July 21 , 2018, 4:34 am | Overcast 64º


Dick Polman: With Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch, Democrats Simply Lost

When Senate Republicans decided last year to ditch their constitutional duty — by stiffing President Barack Obama’s eminently qualified U.S. Supreme Court nominee, denying him even the courtesy of a hearing — they took a big political risk. They gambled that the voters wouldn’t punish them on Election Day.

Turns out, they were right. Their unprecedented power play paid off.

And that’s why the minority Democrats are currently up the creek. They can fume all they want about how the Republican Party stole Merrick Garland’s seat on the nation’s highest court — justifiably so — but their options for blocking President Donald Trump’s nominee, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch, are basically nonexistent.

Senate rules require 60 votes for passage, which means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., needs eight Democrats to say yes. But if Democrats dig in, McConnell can always change the Senate rules and put Gorsuch on the court with a simple majority vote — 51 Republicans saying yes, no Democrats needed.

How come Senate Democrats have so little leverage about the future of the high court? Because elections have consequences, and the 2016 election is Exhibit A.

Last year, Democrats calculated (or hoped, or assumed) that voters would be outraged about the GOP’s work stoppage on the Garland nomination. McConnell and his allies insisted that Garland was DOA simply because Obama was a lame duck in his final year, that presidents don’t get to put anyone on the U.S. Supreme Court in their final year.

The Republicans lied, of course, because lame-duck President Ronald Reagan got to put Anthony Kennedy on the court, with bipartisan support, in his final year.

Democrats figured that the 2016 electorate would rail at the injustice of the GOP stance on Garland, and that Democratic-leaning voters, in particular, would cast ballots en masse with the court’s future direction in mind.

That didn’t happen.

According to the national exit polls, 21 percent of all voters cited the Supreme Court as the “most important” factor in their voting decision. In that cohort, Trump swamped Democrat Hillary Clinton by 15 points. Overall, 70 percent cited the Supreme Court as an “important” factor, and Trump beat Clinton there, too.

Those stats jibe with what we learned on the ground last year. Social and religious conservatives, who fixate on the Supreme Court far more than their liberal counterparts, opted to ignore Trump’s serial lying and moral failings, because he was their best hope for a post-Justice Antonin Scalia conservative bench.

Evangelical Christians, in particular, recognized that Trump was a detestable human being, but Mike Pence worked hard, and successfully, to hose them down and stoke them up.

Even the Republican establishment folks who personally loathed Trump got in line on the court issue. Ex-House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last fall that Trump’s behavior “disgusted” him.

Nevertheless, “The only thing that really matters over the next four years or eight years is who is going to appoint the next Supreme Court nominees ... The biggest impact any president can have on American society and on the American economy is who’s on that court.”

So while the average Democratic-leaning voter dozed off about Garland’s hostage status, the average conservative voter got assurances that Trump would deliver on tilting the court. Promise made, promise kept.

McConnell, in his role as Trump enabler, says that Trump’s nominee should be “confirmed based upon the completely outstanding credentials that we’re going to see,” which is galling, of course, because Gorsuch will occupy the seat that was meant for Garland, whose completely outstanding credentials, as a lower-court judge, had long been vetted and supported by Republicans.

But there’s no point in lashing the Republicans for their success. They got their voters stoked about the court, Democrats did not.

If Democratic Party leaders had driven home the “stolen seat” message; if the Democratic-leaning citizens who stupidly stayed home, or wasted their votes on Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, had instead paid sufficient attention to the Garland farce; if they had made peace with Clinton’s imperfections and sensibly viewed her as the best vehicle for tilting the high court leftward, then the odds are high that Trump would never be where he is.

And Senate Democrats would not be reduced to firing blanks.

Dick Polman is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia, a “Writer in Residence” at the University of Pennsylvania and is syndicated by Cagle Cartoons. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter: @DickPolman1. Click here for previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >