There is no good legal argument against the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. There is nothing unconstitutional or unprecedented about it.
Yet some Senate Democrats insist anyway that Barrett’s nomination is “illegitimate.” Those using this word have not yet explained what, exactly, is “illegitimate” about it. They just keep saying it in the hope that the public will accept it as truth.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, for example, said on Sunday that he will not meet with Barrett. “I believe, first, that the whole process has been illegitimate,” he said.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said likewise. “I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes.”
He added, “I refuse to treat this process as legitimate and will not meet with Judge Barrett.”
Funnily enough, when challenged this weekend by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to explain what he means by “illegitimate,” a seemingly unprepared Blumenthal conceded, “It may not violate the Constitution.” Also, while we are on the topic, it was Blumenthal who said in 2016 that the Senate has a “constitutional obligation” to fill “a Supreme Court vacancy,” so that must be out the window.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, warned that Barrett’s confirmation would mean a loss of legitimacy, saying, “My Republican colleagues must remember that the legitimacy of the Senate and our judiciary are on the line.”
“I will not meet with Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. “This nomination process is illegitimate. I refuse to participate in the further degradation of our democracy and our judiciary.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon called it an “illegitimate nomination,” adding that he has “no intention” of meeting with Barrett.
“This entire process is illegitimate,” he added again for good measure.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said, “The name of Trump’s illegitimate Supreme Court nominee in many ways doesn’t matter. We know exactly what that person is being picked to do: complete a decades-long assault on our judiciary by billionaires and giant corporations to tilt the courts for the rich and powerful.”
Of the aforementioned senators, only Blumenthal has been called upon to explain his meaning. He did not exactly stick the landing.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the basics of U.S. civics knows that nothing that has transpired so far has been unlawful or illicit. As I wrote earlier on Monday:
There is nothing unusual about election-year nominations and confirmations. There is nothing rushed about Barrett’s nomination. No precedent is being broken; no norm is being slashed.
That sitting senators, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are pretending there is something “illegitimate” about the Barrett nomination is as laughable as it is damnable.
Their feigned outrage is worse even than the people who say Barrett has disqualified herself by accepting the nomination “under these circumstances.” At least with the stupid “circumstances” talking point, they don’t try to create the illusion that there is legal weight to their argument.
