×

Against centrism (in this case)

A column by Froma Harrop in last week’s Enterprise argued that Democrats should avoid adding to “the growing pile of litter being thrown onto our political norms” and give Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, a “fair and civil hearing.”

Like so many of us, Harrop is worried about the shifts and bends that we see in the way our democracy is being manipulated by the new administration. She hopes “centrists” will come together across party lines to be ready to pick up the pieces when the current intensity is played out.

Against the swirl of chaos surrounding the Trump transition, it’s tempting to value stability and pragmatism. Judge Gorsuch is a competent choice for the court; denying him a hearing could seem petty or vengeful. But being a centrist does not require one to compromise as a goodwill gesture.

I believe that it is appropriate for the Senate Democrats to block the hearings for Mr. Gorsuch as long as possible and to continue to oppose President Trump wherever and whenever it seems necessary.

Here’s why.

This president has little respect for the legitimacy of government. Among the many examples, he has shown this by choosing individuals to lead agencies who actively oppose the function of the agency itself, such as Scott Pruitt to the Environmental Protection Agency; who bring no government experience, such as Ben Carson to Housing and Urban Development; or do both, such as Betsy DeVos to the Department of Education.

Recently, President Trump made disparaging remarks about a “so-called” judge who halted his executive order and threatened to withhold funding from the University of California at Berkeley because black-masked men instigated violence during a protest last week. These statements show a willful misunderstanding of the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution.

As the chief executive, the president has great control over international affairs. President Trump’s belligerence with allies such as Mexico and Australia shames us. His carelessness with regard to coalitions like NATO and the United Nations makes it less certain that countries will be able to act together when necessary.

President Trump’s willingness to strike out at any critic and to tacitly encourage others to join in mocks the ideal of leadership that should dampen, not increase division. His personal attacks on and efforts to discredit the press, at the same time his publicists disseminate incorrect facts and figures, frustrates our need to be a well-informed citizenry.

These objections relate to President Trump’s general unfitness to lead and the threat that he poses to our understanding of democracy. Hopefully our elected officials will keep these in mind as they decide when and how to cooperate. But there is a more specific reason to reject arguments about the repercussions in Congress of not assisting in seating Judge Gorsuch.

As we all know, the process for confirming Supreme Court justices was upended last year by Senate Republicans’ blanket refusal to consider any nominee for almost a full year before the election. In other words, there is precedent for obstruction that is based not on the merit of the nominee.

The tool that Senate Democrats have at their disposal is the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote override. Majority Leader McConnell could move to eliminate the filibuster if Democrats use it to hold up Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. Because of this possibility, some Democrats are hesitant to oppose this nomination in order to be able to use the filibuster in the future. The flaw in this argument is obvious: If Democrats forgo using this tactic in order to save it for a later date, it can be removed as easily then as now.

Ms. Harrop praises conservatives such as Sen. McCain for standing on principle by expressing disagreement with the new administration, although we have yet to see any of their floor speeches translate into votes. At the same time she chides the left for being “politically inert.” Some members of Congress are showing themselves to be anything but inert by challenging the appointment process, no matter how qualified the candidate. My praise goes to Senators Gillibrand, Booker, Warren, Merkley, Wyden and their counterparts in the House who are holding the line against normalizing this presidency.

Ellen Beberman lives in Vermontville.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

Starting at $4.75/week.

Subscribe Today