Charles Krauthammer: Karma, precedent and the nuclear option


For euphemism, dissimulation and outright hypocrisy, there is nothing quite as entertaining as the periodic Senate dust-ups over Supreme Court appointments and the filibuster. The arguments for and against the filibuster are so well-known to both parties as to be practically memorized. Both nonetheless argue their case with great shows of passion and conviction. Then shamelessly switch sides — and scripts — depending on the ideology of the nominee.

Everyone appeals to high principle, when everyone knows these fights are about raw power. When Democrat Harry Reid had the majority in the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, he abolished the filibuster in 2013 for sub-Supreme Court judicial appointments in order to pack three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bad karma, bad precedent, he was warned. Republicans would one day be in charge. That day is here — and Republicans have just stopped a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch by extending the Reid Rule to the Supreme Court.

To be sure, there are reasoned arguments to be offered on both sides of the filibuster question. It is true that the need for a supermajority does encourage compromise and coalition-building. But given the contemporary state of hyperpolarization — the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats of 40 years ago are long gone — the supermajority requirement today merely guarantees inaction, which, in turn, amplifies the current popular disgust with politics in general and Congress in particular. In my view, that makes paring back the vastly overused filibuster, on balance, a good thing.

Moreover, killing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations — the so-called nuclear option — yields two gratifications: It allows a superb, young, conservative jurist to ascend to the seat once held by Antonin Scalia. And it constitutes condign punishment for the reckless arrogance of Reid and his erstwhile Democratic majority.

A major reason these fights over Supreme Court nominations have become so bitter and unseemly is the stakes — the political stakes. The Supreme Court has become more than ever a superlegislature. From abortion to gay marriage, it has appropriated to itself the final word. It rules — and the normal democratic impulses, expressed through the elected branches, are henceforth stifled.

This transfer of legislative authority has suited American liberalism rather well.

But this is nonsense. In a democracy, what better embodiment of evolving norms can there be than elected representatives? By what logic are the norms of a vast and variegated people better reflected in nine appointed lawyers produced by exactly three law schools?

If anything, the purpose of a constitutional court such as ours is to enforce old norms that have preserved both our vitality and our liberty for 230 years. How? By providing a rugged reliable frame within which the political churnings of each generation take place.

The Gorsuch nomination is a bitter setback to the liberal project of using the courts to ratchet leftward the law and society. However, Gorsuch’s appointment simply preserves the court’s ideological balance of power. Wait for the next nomination. Having gratuitously forfeited the filibuster, Democrats will be facing the loss of the court for a generation.

Condign punishment indeed.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Friedman: Charlottesville, ISIS and us

I’ve been on the road since the Charlottesville killing. I am traveling with the chief of the U.S. Air Force, Gen. David Goldfein; his civilian boss, the Air Force secretary, Heather Wilson; and their aides. We’re at the Al Udeid Air Base, from which America’s entire ISIS-Syria-Iraq-Afghanistan air war is run. With all the news from...
Rubin: Republicans, cut the outrage; it’s time to disown Trump

The party of Lincoln is now the party of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Southern slave owners who decided to kill fellow Americans so that they could keep men, women and children enslaved. The Republican Party has obliterated its entire historical legacy and become the party of the Enemies of Lincoln. And let’s be clear: Republicans cannot...
CARTOON
CARTOON

CARTOON VIEW MIKE SMITH
POINT OF VIEW: If we want good health care, first need better health

Congress’ health care wrestling match will never end without one key ingredient: healthier people. Let’s face it: The debate is all about money — that is, how we afford to cover all the bills Americans are racking up. It’s a good question, given that one-third of Americans have diabetes or pre-diabetes, two-thirds are overweight...
Letters: Why out of state? Because ideas, money all from elsewhere

Ideas, money, support all come from elsewhere Interesting observation regarding the hiring of out-of-state consultants. (“Why does county hire Texas firms?” Letters, Saturday) Could it be because the overwhelming majority of “governing officials” are from out of state? Could it be because many “investors” are from...
More Stories