Uncharted Waters
We're unwittingly approaching them... and that's not good
Being in uncharted waters is a euphemism that expresses an uneasiness in an unknown situation. That uneasiness is caused by the knowledge that bad things can happen when we are faced with unknown situations. As a country we are now moving very quickly into uncharted waters. And some bad things may be around the corner.
Last week a madman travelled from California to Maryland with the intent to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice. The rationale he gave was an upcoming decision that the court is to make which will overturn the precedent established by Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey. The decision, if it holds to the draft decisions that was leaked, would move legislation of abortion from the federal level to the state level.
That someone would contemplate and ultimately attempt such a heinous action was utterly predictable. Fortunately this person was apprehended before he could achieve his wicked ends. Once the majority opinion was leaked, the radical left wing of our country was mobilized to intimidate these justices such that they changed their opinion prior to the decision being finalized. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened. And sadly, this may not be the last time this happens.
Amazingly, this has been all but condoned by a media that covers for these actions. And more astoundingly it is also tacitly supported by a White House that encourages the intimidation of justices and takes no actions to prevent pressure being placed, illegally, against the justices to sway their opinions.
It appears that in the left's view, the ends justify the means. It's no big deal!!! It is acceptable to intimidate the judiciary if the end result is getting the decision you favor. This is done in complete ignorance of the purpose of having a judiciary shielded from political influence. Lifetime appointments are granted to judges for the explicit purpose that they aren't to be influenced by the current opinions of the masses. The judiciary answers to the Constitution, not the population... There are two other branches of government that are intended to be influenced by the people. And if there are portions of the constitution that are broadly unpopular, there are methods by which those may be updated or repealed.
Currently the incentive structure is set up for an extremely bad outcome. First, we have an extremely polarized political environment. The two primary political ideologies have pushed further from each other. This makes compromise on any issue nearly impossible. Next we have a Supreme Court that is ideologically conservative. Some would argue it is 6-3, but I would argue it is probably closer to 5-4 given Robert's tendency to side with liberal justices on hot button issues. Finally we have a liberal party in tenuous control of both the legislative and executive branches of the government. The fragility of their hold on power gives many in their sphere of influence the idea that they must do something immediately. If you are convinced that your grasp of power will be lost in a few months you must act immediately. Unfortunately it is times like these that a crazy person may go too far and attempt to become a martyr for the cause. This is what we have already witnessed in an unsuccessful attempt on a Justice's life. But what if they were to succeed?
Imagine this world, where an adherent of the radical left's political ideology actually pulls off a heinous act like this California man had planned. Where does that leave us? Short answer - not in a good place.
If there is an assassination of a justice (in this case a conservative member) then the levels of polarization in this country will increase. Conservatives will rightfully be infuriated by an opposing political party that whipped their side into a frenzy by essentially lying to their constituents about the consequences of the decision. Radical leftists will see this as an opportunity to change the demographics of the court and will be likewise infuriated by conservative efforts to stonewall any nominee. The president would have three primary ways (that I can think of) to address this, and none are great. Here they are, as I see them, listed from least to most likely.
Biden defers decision to House of Representatives Minority Leader
At this point the country is going to be a political powder keg. If you truly wanted to do something to attempt to bring down the temperature (to whatever extent that is possible), as president you would want to send a signal to the country that political discourse can not be affected by violence. That is an incentive structure that is incredibly dangerous to condone and especially dangerous to reward.
To accomplish this the president could defer the selection of the replacement justice to the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives (Kevin McCarthy). This would ensure that a conservative was replaced by a conservative and no political advantage was gained by the assassination. This would also ensure there wasn’t a conflict of interest with the advice and consent role of the Senate (hence why McConnell wouldn’t be chosen to make the pick).
I see this way ahead as being highly unlikely as it would be a non-starter to the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. At this moment, the Democratic Party needs every voter it can get and the last thing it needs is to alienate its most hardcore voting bloc. I can think of nothing that would demoralize this portion of the party more than a significantly pro-life candidate being proposed for the court. And the Republicans would be well advised to put the most pro-life candidate up for nomination as that talking point would be neutralized during any confirmation hearing. The nation would largely be aghast at a abortion litmus test for a candidate to replace a justice that was assassinated essentially due to their views on abortion.
Biden does not fill seat until next Presidential election
The second option is to announce he is going to hold off on announcing how the seat will be filled until after the midterms or next presidential election. This is slightly more palatable than handing the selection directly over to the Republicans…. But just slightly. The issue is that the Democratic Party knows they are likely to lose the midterms, thus this ends up being nothing more than a delay tactic. Then we’ll have to go with one of the other options presented. Further, the left is going to be angry that the president wasn’t committed enough to "the cause". This course of action may signal some bipartisanship, but due to the political costs it would inflict on an already demoralized party I don't see how this way ahead would be chosen.
Biden fills seat
This is probably the most divisive, but most likely move in this scenario. Biden knows that he needs the progressive wing of his party to support the Democrats in the midterms. Also he is aware that nominating a liberal justice to replace an assassinated conservative justice is going to completely anger the country. The optics are horrible. But this is what he would likely pursue. He could possibly propose a “moderate” liberal like Obama attempted with Merrick Garland… but given how Garland has acted as Attorney General, conservatives are going to be extremely hesitant to trust any selection from the president.
So, we’re possibly (but hopefully not) headed for uncharted waters. Sadly our president has no good options to handle such an occasion if it were to occur… and the people advising him don’t necessarily have his (or the country’s) best interests in mind. They have their own political agendas at the forefront of their thinking. I hope we don’t have to find out how this would play out. But sadly due to the extremely heated rhetoric of the day, there is a chance we’re headed in this dark direction.
On that note, have a great week! We’ll try and be a little more upbeat with the next post.