When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) eroded political norms by refusing to hold a vote on Merrick Garlands nomination to the Supreme Court in March of 2016, he set a precedent. The precedent was not, A Supreme Court justice shouldnt be appointed in the last year of a presidents term. The precedent was, Republicans can do whatever they want.
That fact was made obvious by the GOPs rush to fill the seat left empty by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs death a mere 46 days before the 2020 election. The hypocrisy was clear, but that hardly mattered. Republicans control the Senate now, just as they did when President Obama nominated Garland. Few of them are likely to defect. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trumps nominee to replace Ginsburg, will almost certainly be confirmed.
But did Democrats and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in particular really need to give in so easily?
Feinstein, Californias senior senator and the highest-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, questioned Barrett on abortion access, the Affordable Care Act and gun control during this weeks Senate hearings. But her questions werent particularly tough, and she didnt say anything that invoked the single biggest issue with Barretts nomination: that its a blatant Republican power grab threatening to hopelessly politicize and destabilize the Supreme Court, and it shouldnt be happening in the first place.
Instead, Feinstein thanked Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey I want you to use my words against me Graham (R-S.C.) for his leadership during the hearing. This has been one of the best set of hearings that Ive participated in, and I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth, she said.
Theres bipartisanship, and then theres bringing a pillow to a gun fight. The Republican Party has gotten very good at playing constitutional hardball. If Democrats cant or wont match that energy, there wont be a prize for maintaining the moral high ground. There will just be a lot of predictable political impotence.
Adding insult to injury for progressives is the fact that Feinstein can be ferocious with political opponents. She just saves it for the real threats to our democracy like, say, 11-year-old climate activists.
A video of Feinstein speaking dismissively to a group of tweenaged Sunrise Movement activists who asked her to support the Green New Deal went viral in February 2019, and it resurfaced this week as many liberals heavily criticized the senator. The contrast between the Feinstein of the Barrett hearings and the Feinstein of the Sunrise Movement encounter is jarring.
Compare friendly questions like You dont have a magic formula for how you do it and handle all the children and your job and your work and your thought process, which is obviously excellent, do you? with curt remarks like You come in here, and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I dont respond to that. Or I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality. And I know what Im doing. So maybe people should listen a little bit. Who does Feinstein seem to hold in more disdain: a judge whose nomination is an affront, or a bunch of kids who are afraid of dying in a climate apocalypse?
Of course Feinsteins (very, very, very) long political career cant be adequately summed up by a handful of quotes from two events. But for young progressives, its deeply disappointing for one of the most senior Democrats in Congress to treat the Republicans rushing Barretts confirmation with kid gloves after treating young Californians concerned about climate change with open contempt.
The contrast makes it clear that Feinstein prioritizes an outdated model of bipartisanship over engaging a passionate, young, left-leaning voter base. Reaching across the aisle might once have been a noble impulse. But when the Republican Party has more or less unanimously sworn fealty to a demagogic Republican president and the entire West Coast has caught fire, its past time for long-serving senators like Feinstein to either adjust their sense of whats important or step aside.