Erick Erickson is frantic to claim to his audience that the possible upending of Roe v. Wade is entirely legitimate, because any hint of dirty work will taint, and in fact legitimize a later reversal of this decision, should enough believers in abortion rights be appointed to SCOTUS in the near term.
So how is he doing? Not well. Here’s just one paragraph:
Fourth, the pro-life movement followed the rule of law to accomplish this goal. They elected Republican Presidents and pushed for pro-life judges. They elected Republican senators who approved those judges and justices. Ironically, it was the Democrats’ own rule-breaking that got the Dobbs case across the finish line. Had Harry Reid and the Democrats not ended the filibuster for nominations, this moment would not have come. Their rule-breaking ended Roe and progressive law clerks’ rule-breaking brought us the first notice of it. Pro-lifers followed the rules and were able to capitalize on the Democrats rewriting the rules. Ironic.
Where to start? I suppose in order of assertions is best.
They elected Republican Presidents …
They did? Shall we discuss the illegitimacy of the Bush Administration, when a Republican-dominated SCOTUS terminated a poorly run Florida election, declaring for Bush, before the recount was finished? Shall we discuss the intimidating Brooks Brothers riot?
The Brooks Brothers riot was a demonstration at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 22, 2000, during a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election, with the goal of shutting down the recount. After demonstrations and acts of violence, local officials shut down the recount early. [Wikipedia]
That’s hardly legitimacy, now is it? But let’s finish off that first sentence:
… and pushed for pro-life [i.e., anti-abortion – hw] judges.
Illegitimate on its face, Erickson, and you know that. Judges do many things, but letting their opinions be shaped by religious doctrine is not one of those things. And we all should know that.
This one made me laugh:
They elected Republican senators who approved those judges and justices.
And didn’t even consider Judge Garland. Indeed, to better understand the issue, more context is needed. When Justice Scalia passed away, more than a year before the end of President Obama’s second term, Obama displayed professional behavior by consulting with Republican Senators and nominating Judge Garland, with their approval, a month or two later.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) then led his caucus in a series of bald-faced lies about how new Justices are never approved during the final year of a term, such ridiculous lies that I think we lost a few journalists to death by laughter. It was that silly.
But McConnell, by not even permitting the hearings required by the Constitution, if I may take a positive view of Constitutional governance, won his dishonorable point. When Trump defeated Clinton, permitting Trump to nominate and have confirmed Judge Gorsuch, we have one Illegitimate Justice; when Justice Ginsburg passed away in the final weeks of Trump’s term, McConnell couldn’t wait to break his own made-up rule concerning nomination and confirmation of justices, confirming Amy Coney Barrett to SCOTUS just prior to the election resulting in the easily predictable election of Joe Biden to the Presidency.
Count ’em: that’s two Illegitimate Justices.
And then there’s this utterly mendacious line:
Had Harry Reid and the Democrats not ended the filibuster for nominations, this moment would not have come.
The first lie is the most obvious: The Democrats didn’t end the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations.
In 2017 [when the Senate was held by the Republicans] the number of senators required to invoke cloture on Supreme Court nominations was reduced from 60 to a majority of senators voting. [Wikipedia]
A little more research reveals that this was used for the Gorsuch nomination. Erickson might defend by claiming he was talking about all the non-SCOTUS nominations, which would make his argument true, but that is made irrelevant by his own last clause, … this moment would never have come. That invalidates the argument.
But if we charitably – very charitably – give him that point, the argument I just employed makes it clear that the Republicans were just as likely, if not more so, to change the rules when it came to SCOTUS nominations.
And if he wants to claim that the Republicans were merely inspired by the Democrats’ action to remove the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominations, well, I just may have to die laughing as well. Of course they would. The Democrats would not have approved far-right judges for SCOTUS, and the Republicans’ control of the Senate in 2017 didn’t extend to the necessary 60 vote limit. Given a choice between a reasonable judge to nominate and killing the filibuster in order to force through an arbitrarily far-right choice, we know what McConnell’s decision would be, because he demonstrated it already.
The other option, of a SCOTUS slowly eroding as justices retired or died, would not have been tolerable to the American public, especially the independents. The Republicans suffer whenever they are closely examined, and a decaying SCOTUS would have brought forth a lot of examination.
Erickson’s last bit:
Their rule-breaking ended Roe and progressive law clerks’ rule-breaking brought us the first notice of it. Pro-lifers followed the rules and were able to capitalize on the Democrats rewriting the rules. Ironic.
This is nothing more than a sparkly bit to make sure no one examines what he’s written too closely. Invoke the smug morality, certain that a Divinity is behind them, and the feel-good hormones will stop most sympathetic readers from thinking about this line of bullshit that our ever-pious radio talk show guy is peddling.
Another reason not to take Erickson too seriously.
