In the raging culture war, hypocrisy in defense of the unborn is no vice.
Barry Goldwater probably just harrumphed in his grave.
Goldwater was the John the Baptist forerunner for the messiah of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan. He famously alarmed a saner America in 1964 by saying that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
At that time, extremism--and hypocrisy--were negative things.
Now the extremists are in charge and they are hypocrites.
Democrats might do the same if roles were reversed. A Supreme Court seat is what American politics is all about. It's for a lifetime. Through its rulings, the Supreme Court makes more defining law than Congress, both on the culture war on abortion and gay rights and on the political war with Citizens United declaring that wealth buys extra speech.
Republicans said in 2016 that a Supreme Court nomination when it belonged to a Democratic president shouldn't be considered within eight months of a presidential election. They say now, on the tragic and untimely passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that a two-month rush job in the heat of election season on their nomination is perfectly appropriate.
The evangelical base of professed conservative Christians on whom Republican elections hinge would never forgive Republicans for turning down a chance to ram through an anti-abortion justice.
As a true conservative preferring that government keep hands off women's bodies, Goldwater became openly pro-choice. But now most Republicans are less conservatively principled than cowed by the so-called religious right.
Republicans will make their move probably during the lame-duck congressional session between the November election and the end of the year, especially if they lose the presidential election and/or lose ground in the confirmation body that is the U.S. Senate.
Both those outcomes could well become more likely if Republicans follow Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's smug promise to do hastily now what he said Democrats were wrong to even think of doing at usual speed in 2016.
This presidential race already was largely about women. But now, in Ginsburg's honor and because of Republican hypocrisy and heavy-handedness, the female factor could become even more pronounced.
To engage in great gender generalization: Millions of women are anti-
abortion, but not all are single-issue voters. Right-leaning women will be more apt than right-leaning men to recoil against hypocrisy and bullying. They didn't like Donald Trump's behavior already.
I can imagine right-leaning and fair-minded women having it both ways. They could get a lifetime conservative justice, which suits them, and they could vote to try to punish arrogance and re-balance power.
Republicans could well win the Ginsburg replacement but Democrats could well win the presidency and gain a seat or three in the Senate.
The Republican win would be bigger. One election is worth a 6-3 court advantage.
The worst scenario for Republicans is that they not only lose the presidency over their hypocritical heavy-handedness but can't get a Ginsburg replacement confirmed.
Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah might--might--reject the frenzied unfairness. That would leave Republicans with 50 votes, with Vice President Pence breaking the tie. One more defection ... but whom might it be? Which other Republican senator wishes to be called baby-killer?
Lindsey Graham, for now the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, has already officially ignored his usual blabber-mouthing in 2016 that voters should hold his words against him if he failed to support deferring any other Supreme Court nomination in a future election year just as he favored deferral that year.
Tom Cotton said in '16 that he saw no reason to rush the nomination that year. He sees reason now. It's as simple as that.
John Boozman put out a McConnell-dictated statement in 2016 saying Democrats had no basis for claiming a right to get their nominee considered. He'll deliver a McConnell-dictated statement this time saying that of course Republicans have the right.
By the way, Trump's list of possible Supreme Court nominees that included Cotton's name surely was less about Cotton's serious consideration than Trump's wanting to cover all conservative bases including the sneering extreme for which Cotton is emerging as champion.
The unfairness abounds ... and compounds.
The Republican rush will have a chance to succeed only because our electoral system now routinely lifts second place over first place.
We have a preposterous president who finished in second place in the popular vote. He will have a chance to influence case law with uncommon divisiveness for a generation. Confirmation would come from Republicans whose 53 majority senators got fewer votes in total than the Democratic caucus' minority of 47.
Republicans have won the American people only once since 1988, yet they've ruled much of that time. They're a perennial place horse collecting their first-place winnings at the Supreme Court.
We need to find another word for a member of the Supreme Court. Justice seems ill-fitting.
--–––––v–––––--
John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at [email protected]. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.