Rules Don’t Apply to Me!

 

“When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total."

“The federal government has absolute power. It has the power. As to whether or not I'll use that power, we'll see.”

Donald Trump, April 2016   

“When you have the Senate, when you have the votes, you can sort of do what you want as long as you have it.”

Donald Trump, September 21st

Repeated in the Impeachment Hearings by his chief counsel and reaffirmed by his Attorney General, a sitting president is exempt from indictment and cannot be impeached or tried for high crimes and misdemeanors by reasons of his/her decisions. Trump’s executive orders are constantly being rejected by federal courts. Trump is exceptionally put out by the US Constitution, from First Amendment rights on through the due process requirement and the separation of powers among the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial). He is an open admirer of autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un who rule unencumbered by statutes and constitutional restrictions. Unfortunately, the Constitution does apply here and restricts the President, and where Congress has properly enacted (or failed to enact) legislation within their constitutional mandate, his executive orders have no validity. 

The notion that “the rules do not apply to me” has apparently leaked into the ethos of the entire Republican Party, a reality that is coming home to roost with the passing of yet another Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the opening of yet another Supreme Court vacancy literally 44 days before the next presidential election. Let’s look back at the last such vacancy that occurred in an election year. 

After US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February of 2016, Barack Obama nominated moderate justice Merrick Garland (Chief Justice on the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, Harvard BA, summa cum laude, Harvard law, magna cum laude) to replace him on the highest court in the land. March 16, almost 9 months before the next Presidential election. “In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding ‘no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever’ on the nomination. The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen’. Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advice and consent role.” Wikipedia 

Under this reasoning, the appointment of a successor justice in an election year should be deferred to whomever is elected that November. But the United States has become severely politicized, from medical matters during a pandemic to Supreme Court appointments. Thus, what was gospel blockage of a Democratic presidential Supreme Court nominee almost three quarters of a year before an election turns out not to apply where the prospective appointment is by a Republican presidential appointment with less than two months before such an election. 

Within two hours of Justice Ginsberg’s death, GOP Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell made it clear that getting a conservative justice to change the complexion of the court was an immediate priority. “Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise… President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” 

The President was clearly of a mind to do just that. “A day after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, chants of ‘Fill that seat! Fill that seat!’ broke out during President Trump's campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C., on Saturday [9/19]… ‘That's what we're going to do. We're going to fill that seat!’ Trump said, saying his supporters should print ‘Fill that seat!’ on T-shirts. 

“The president also pledged to nominate a woman for the seat, saying ‘I actually like women much more than I like men.’ He went on to ‘poll’ the crowd about whether they'd prefer a man or a woman for the seat. The cheers were much louder for a woman nominee… ‘It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman,’ Trump then announced.” NPR.com, September 19th. 

The Democrats rightfully screamed: “‘The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,’ Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a tweet, reusing McConnell’s exact words from 2016.” TheHill.com, September 18th. 

Campaign contributions to both parties, but particularly favoring the Democrats, exploded. To Republicans, facing the reality that Democrats were unlikely to lose the House, had a slight edge to take the Senate in November and that the GOP had an increasingly unpopular Presidential nominee, the ability to take the Court would assure Republican political power for decades to come. Roe v Wade was teetering under an evangelical tsunami of support for reversal. Decisions in what was likely to be a contentious and controversial election were also in the offing. 

One interim Senate election that would replace an Arizona vacancy this year and the potential of two or three GOP Senate defections were all that stood between that judicial anomaly and application of the same GOP mandate imposed on the Garland nomination. If the Dems eventually are truly in power, they just might have the legislative power to add Supreme Court justices, which is not set in the Constitution. Rule by retaliation? Really? 

But what these exchanges point out with exceptional clarity are both the exceptional polarization, seemingly without possible compromise, that has ripped this nation apart and that we have a President who openly admits that he does not represent any Americans who disagree with his core polices… they remain without a president. 

I’m Peter Dekom, and the damage from following deeply dishonest and manipulative tactics directed to disenfranchise what may well be the majority of America voters invites destructive retaliation and erodes the democratic principles upon which this republic was founded.