Codevilla calls ’em all out.
Understandably, senators such as Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who have made careers of talking conservative while doing their utmost not to displease the ruling class that despises us, don’t want further to energize opposition to their reelection. Hence, they kind of promise to vote “no” now while kind of promising to vote “yes” after the election.
The question before President Trump and McConnell is whether to identify with these small masters of not so small betrayals. If they do, they would discredit themselves and their party. Why should voters believe that, all together, they will do after the election what they have the power to do now but refuse? What is the difference between before the election and after the election?
There is only one difference, namely: to act before an election is to submit one’s actions to immediate judgment by the sovereign people. As you act, you must explain to the voters why it is right to act as you do. The voters then decide on you.
And why would a worthy nominee agree to undergo the certainty of vilification by the Left knowing that, after the election, the newly reelected weak Republicans would be stronger than ever in pressing the concerns of their ruling class donors against Trump, newly a lame-duck, regardless of voters whom they would not have to face for another six years?
Angelo recommends one day of hearings, a total ban on Democrat-Socialist carnival acts and freakshows, and limited floor debate, none of which ought to be considered in any way radical or outrageous. The Repubs hold a majority in the Senate; if they refuse to start acting like it, they won’t for much longer. This is an opportunity for the RINOs to redeem themselves, at least somewhat. If they let it pass them by, it will cost them dearly. And it certainly should.
Happily, though, it looks as if Lindsey v2.0 might be making a most welcome comeback.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Monday night said his party has enough votes to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the November election.
“We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,” Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
“We’re going to move forward in the committee, we’re going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election.”
Bold mine, and quite encouraging words they are too. Even better:
Yesterday, Graham sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee politely informing them that he’s here to kick a** and chew gum, and he just ran out of gum. Here is a quote from the end of the letter:
“Lastly, after the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh I now have a different view of the judicial-nomination process. Compare the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh to that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and it’s clear that there is already one set of rules for a Republican president and one set of rules for a Democrat president. I therefore think it is important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy. I am certain that if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same.”
OK then. It’s on.
Good stuff all, to be sure, but now we come to something truly astounding.
The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.
Simple, direct, rational, and perfectly reasonable. So who said it?
Better sit down for it, folks. Trust me.