It's a “principle” thing

When asked about President Obama's pick of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia, Sen. Dan Sullivan said: “It's not about Garland but rather about the principle.” Good job senator; it is about the principle. Of course I'm talking about the principle of politics uber alles. Anything else is just so late 18^th century.

Back then politicians had a misplaced affection for the Constitution. In fact the tyrant George Washington waited until his last year in office to nominate Judge Samuel Chase to the Supreme Court. And congress actually approved the appointment. What a gathering of misguided souls.

I know what you're all thinking. Article II section 2 clause 2 of the constitution says: “he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court...” Well okay, it's in the Constitution, but it's not like it's the Second Amendment or anything. It's just one of those article thingies that, when you get down to it, are really sort of constraining.

And then there's the principle of this sort of appointment not having been done for over a hundred years. That is if you don't count Hoover's nomination of Benjamin Cardozo February 15, 1932, or Roosevelt’s nomination of Frank Murphy January 4 1940. Both nominations were approved.

I know; I know. Your saying back then Presidents didn't have term limits. That's right. They were running for office while they were appointing judges. How could election year politics have any influence on their decision making?

After the 22^nd Amendment, which limited the President to two terms, things changed. That is if you don't count Eisenhower’s recess appointment of Sherman Milton September 7 1956. He was later confirmed by the Senate when it came back into session. And then there's Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas in 1968 to succeed retiring Chief Justice Warren. That nomination didn't make it, but the court still had 9 Justices because Warren had the courtesy to not die before a replacement could be found. So this long tradition of not nominating someone in an election year must fall under the revered principle of: say what ever you want because no one is going to look it up.

The senior senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, had a somewhat more nuanced approach to the issue. At first she said she thought the President should be given an up or down vote on his nomination. That was quickly followed by her saying she didn't mean the President should be given an up or down vote on his nomination. She went on to sight an increasingly toxic atmosphere surrounding this election season and said: “...any nominee is likely to become a political football.” Enter Charlie (Barack) Brown.

Murkowski also said: “This is not good for the nominee, it is not good for the court, and it is not good for the American people.” Well, nail on the head Senator. You're absolutely right. It's not good for an abundantly qualified judge to answer the call of his country, or for the President to do what the Constitution clearly demands of him. And It's certainly not good for the American people to have their electoral will exercised in the person of the man they twice elected to the Presidency.

That brings me to the last point. Both our senators are saying the people should have a voice in the selection of a new justice and that voice should be heard on election day. Well, let's consult that dusty old Constitution again. It seems those “big govmnt” founding fathers didn't want the people to elect Supreme Court Justices. How rude. They envisioned that branch of government as being free from the political fray. This would enable them to interpret the Constitution without fear of political reprisal from the other two branches or the electorate.

Of course we in the 21^st century have evolved into a more enlightened approach. We want the people to weigh into this process. We're still consulting the Constitution in that we want the President to do the nominating, just not this President. We want the voice of the people to be heard, but not the voice we heard when we elected this President two times in a row. We want to hear from some future voice. You know, the one that elects Hillary Clinton. Who knows, that voice could nominate Barack Obama to the Supreme Court. Quick, someone send Mitch McConnell the definition of irony. Then again if Trump wins the election, could a Justice Omarosa be in our future?

Chuck Legge is a freelance political cartoonist and community columnist who lives in Sutton. His political cartoons, “The World According to Chuck,” are printed in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman and other newspapers around the state and nation.