“There is only one principled vote on Amy Coney Barrett: No”
Definition of despicable : "deserving to be despised : so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation"
On Sunday, the Washington Post published a despicable editorial condemning in advance any United States senator who dares vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Why is the editorial board’s conclusion despicable? Because it denies the fact, as do so many intolerant partisans of the Left and the Right these days, that people of principle are to be found all across the political spectrum, advocating policy positions that are often in opposition to one another. But how can that be? Well, there is usually more than one principle at stake concerning a nomination or a piece of legislation, and there is more than one view as to the right course of action to take that is consistent with any principle.
Is it reasonable to assume that ALL Democratic senators are casting a “principled vote” when they, in unison, vote NO on Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination, while ALL Republican senators (except for Susan Collins) will cast an “unprincipled vote” by voting YES for the nomination? One could more readily explain the senators’ votes by saying Democrats in the Senate oppose another conservative-leaning Supreme Court justice appointed by a Republican president while the Republicans support another conservative-leaning appointee of a Republican president.
The Post editorial claims that “There is no comparable downside to waiting until after the votes are counted to confirm her…” Again, this is nonsense. Imagine that Biden wins the election. Then contemplate the argument that would be made against confirming Barrett if the vote on the nomination were delayed until after the election results are tallied. Democrats – with the likely backing of the WaPo editorial board – would cry “Foul!” They would loudly proclaim that it would be unfair for the Republicans to confirm the nominee of a president who has just been rejected by the voters. And then they would claim that installing Barrett on the Court during a lame-duck session of the Senate would forever taint her position on the Supreme Court.
Why am I absolutely certain that the Democrats would make such a claim, despite the fact that there is no constitutional violation involved in the continued functioning of the government between a presidential election in early November and Inauguration Day on January 20? I am certain because the argument sounds plausible, and that’s all either Democrats or Republicans need to raise a stink – the cover of plausibility.
