Bill Straub: McConnell can site reasons to oppose Supreme Court nominee and can make up others

C’mon. What horse manure.

McConnell never had any intention of voting for Jackson. Our boy has probably spent more time playing the political game of high court appointments than any other party leader in the nation’s history and it’s true he faced a dilemma this go-round because Jackson is not only more-than-qualified for the job, she is also the first African-American woman to come within a cat’s hair of the coveted position. Should her application succeed, she will almost certainly emerge as a historic figure, one with the power to serve as a role model for young Black girls and everyone else for that matter.

Republicans maintain what amounts to a chokehold on white voters across the country but it’s a different story with minority voters, especially African-Americans who generally vote for Democratic candidates nearly 90 percent of the time. So, how do you oppose a supremely capable candidate with all the proper qualifications without emitting a dog whistle that can be viewed as racist?

Well, you make stuff up.

“Judge Jackson tried to deflect on key questions by telling Senators that constitutional issues haven’t come up often during her judicial service,” McConnell said in a statement during Jackson’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. “Does she actually feel unprepared? If so, she shouldn’t be confirmed. If not, then she owes the Senate much more clarity and candor.”

Now that’s weak tea, even for Mitch. If that gambit falls flat, you can always count on our boy to find other entry points. One, of course, centers on his vocal opposition to a plan, supported by some Democrats, to appoint additional justices to the nine-member Supreme Court.

“Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and Breyer had no problem defending the Court and slamming the door on partisan court-packing,” McConnell said in a Senate floor speech. “Judge Jackson won’t follow their lead. She carefully keeps that door open and avoids answering the Committee plainly. I’m afraid that speaks volumes.”

Actually, of course, it’s McConnell’s rabid exertions to devise a semi-reasonable rationale to oppose a Black woman without seeming, well, you know, that thing white people never want to be accused of, is what speaks volumes. After all, Jackson, whether she’s confirmed or rejected, will have absolutely no say in determining whether the high court is expanded or not. It’s a purely legislative decision, as the GOP leader well knows.

If all else fails, you can toss concerns about the dog whistle and head straight for that old reliable among the white conservative voters that constitute the Republican base – law and order.

This requires a backdoor approach. Jackson would be the first Supreme Court justice who served as a public defender – an attorney who represents those accused of a crime but can’t afford legal representation. Public defenders don’t usually maintain a favored status among Republicans – Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who is desperately jockeying to become known as the stupidest member in the upper chamber, told Newsmax, “We have some serious concerns about Judge Jackson’s record, the way that she has conducted business if you will, and the people she chose to represent in private practice, as a public defender.”

By the way, public defenders generally don’t “choose” clients, they’re assigned.

McConnell has been harping pretty consistently recently on a rise in the national crime rate. He has done so without mentioning Jackson but his comments certainly help open a line of attack against the nominee.

“We need to reaffirm our commitment to law and order and come together to make our streets safe again,” he said in a recently published op-ed. “Otherwise, Kentucky’s crime wave will only worsen.”

The Senate will decide early next month whether to confirm Jackson, As things stand, with Democrats in control, albeit by the slimmest margin possible, it’s likely she will slide through even though she has yet to pick up public support from any of the 50 GOP members of the Senate.

McConnell, despite meeting with Jackson and expressing an interest in learning more about her background, never had the slightest intent of endorsing the nomination and quickly set about the task of finding phony-baloney reasons to vote against her rather than offer his support. McConnell has emerged over the years as one of the great champions of the school of thought that places an emphasis on a judicial nominee’s political leanings than his or her legal expertise.

Anyone who is not a dues-paying member of the Federalist Society is persona non grata. McConnell defends his actions by insisting that Democrats sunk the old system of supporting a candidate based on qualifications back in 1987 when activists mobilized against President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of DC Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork, an arch-conservative, to the Supreme Court.

That effort failed, in McConnell’s view, as a result of cutthroat politics, not Bork’s obvious shortcomings. What Mitch doesn’t mention is that six Republicans joined 52 Democrats in opposing the nomination. The rejection had more to do with legal philosophy than politics — Bork actively opposed a number of Supreme Court precedents, including the finding in Griswold V. Connecticut, which set out a right to privacy, declaring that the Constitution protects the right of married couples to purchase contraceptives without government restriction.

Bork, among other things, was also on record opposing the section in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in public accommodations. He also said Jim Crow-era poll taxes were acceptable under the Constitution and that the 14th Amendment, which provides equal protection under law, doesn’t necessarily extend to women.

It’s inane to maintain that today’s all-out battles over Supreme Court nominees date back to Bork. For one thing, the man Reagan nominated in his stead, former Justice Anthony Kennedy, passed the Senate 97-0.

That doesn’t mean Democrats are angels in this mess. In fact, their involvement is at least equally damning. President George W. Bush in 2001 nominated Miguel Estrada to fill an open seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the panel that sits just below the Supreme Court in terms of influence.

Estrada was undeniably well qualified. But Democrats filibustered the appointment – the first in history for an appeals court nominee — essentially asserting that Estrada had failed to provide the Senate with sufficient information about his judicial philosophy. Bush eventually was forced to withdrew the nomination because he proved unable to get a vote.

It eventually was revealed that liberal interest groups pressured Senate Democrats to block the Estrada nomination because he was being groomed as a future Supreme Court nominee and his Latino heritage could render such a nomination difficult to oppose.
Now that’s playing politics and, unlike Bork being “borked,” it’s impossible to defend.

Regardless, Jackson is on the brink of history and McConnell would like to stop it even though, if she should join the court’s liberal wing, conservatives would maintain a 6-3 advantage.

McConnell could chart a new course for judicial nominees. But, of course we’re talking about Addison Mitchell McConnell here, so, Go Big Blue.