Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

The 2016 election dog that didn't bark...yet

The Republican gridlock on the Supreme Court vacancy should have been a big deal -- but it hasn't been. One prominent pundit says the fate of the Earth rests in the balance.

It's hard to believe what I was thinking, back in February, might soon trigger what I called "an American civil war."  (Which would actually be the second one, if anyone's keeping score.) And no, it had nothing to do with the Cubs winning the World Series and all the Biblical prophecies surrounding that. It was over the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republicans' stunning defiance of the American political norms in refusing to fill it.

Here's part of what I wrote on Feb. 15:

Either way, the 2016 presidential election already seemed the most consequential of our lifetime -- but Scalia's death has taken things to a completely new level. Before, "merely" the White House was at stake; today, the coming gridlock not just on Capitol Hill but now at the 4-4 divided Supreme Court, seems the start of a full-blown crisis -- and anyone who say they know what's on the other side is lying. That blood-soaked Civil War was the outcome the last time Washington was this dysfunctional.

Well, I wasn't completely wrong. The GOP has completely obstructed the man that President Obama nominated to the High Court, Merrick Garland (whatever happened to that dude?...he seemed like a nice guy) -- a shameful act of political cowardice. But I also thought it could be an election hammer. Yet it's been months since the Democrats bashed Sen. Pat Toomey (at least in their omnipresent commercials) for failing to act on Garland's nomination. We're too busy chasing the shiny object. Or, in the case of this election, the orange object.

Paul Krugman -- the second least popular Nobel laureate among Attytood commenters -- pointed out that in the long run, inaction on the Supreme Court could prove deadly  -- at least to some folks in future generations, and maybe to Planet Earth:

During an appearance on Bloomberg TV, the Nobel Prize-winning economist said that, even if Hillary Clinton wins on Nov. 8, President Barack Obama's signature piece of climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, could be derailed if a Republican Senate majority blocks every Supreme Court justice she nominates.

The plan has been stalled since February, when the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, granted a stay to 29 states and a slew of industry groups who appealed the rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held a marathon session in September to weigh the plan's future and a decision is due in the coming months. If the Supreme Court continues without a ninth justice, any appeal of that ruling would likely split the country's top court 4-4, which would affirm the lower court's decision.

"If the Democrats take the Senate, we probably save the planet," said Krugman, who recently bemoaned the absence of climate-related questions during the president debates. "Climate change has turned out to be an easier issue economically, and an easier issue politically than we thought."

You'd think this would be a big deal. And if there is a civil war or whatever you want to call it coming in 2017, I guess the Supreme Court vacancy/gridlock will be a part of it. But the chances exist for a much bigger breakdown. Regardless of whether Clinton or Trump wins on Tuesday, does anyone doubt there will be a serious push for impeachment next year? -- the only difference being that the impeachment of a President Clinton would start sooner and have a better chance of success. Meanwhile, I'll bet at least half of the people voting on Tuesday have no idea who Merrick Garland is. Consider the Supreme Court another dog that hasn't barked....yet.