Should a constitutional procedure like the choice of a Supreme Court justice depend upon the dying or retiring wish of a departing justice? Should it depend upon the possible installation of a new president? Of course not. That means adding conditions to the constitution’s procedures. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. To counsel delaying an appointment for any number of ad hoc politically-motivated excuses is fundamentally to flout the constitution, to downgrade it and to ignore it. Such recommendations reveal their authors to be anti-constitutionalists. For openers, Senators Hirono and Blumenthal are in the anti-constitution pack. Obama has placed himself in it too in no uncertain terms. These politicians perhaps do not realize that when they make ad hoc excuses for the president to delay his constitutional prerogative, they are shunting the constitution aside. They are disputing its primacy while substituting some other priority of their own.
Kamala Harris now joins this sorry pack. In her remarks attendant to justice Ginsburg’s memorial service, Harris said “Already the President and his party have chosen to ignore Justice Ginsburg’s final wish, to hold off the nomination to replace her until after the next president is chosen…”
Strangely, in this short set of remarks, she had just got done emphasizing the role of women’s rights in Ginsburg’s life and work. It didn’t cross her mind that Trump has nominated a woman for the vacant seat. That fact didn’t stop Harris from calumny. She accused Trump of being anti-women. She claimed that Trump was not interested in hearing any of justice Ginsburg’s lessons.
It’s very difficult to watch and listen to Harris for this 3 minutes and 28 seconds as she capitalizes on Ginsburg’s death, urges us to place the politics of Ginsburg above the constitutional power of the president, any president, urges us to ignore the constitution, and maliciously attacks Trump for doing his duty and what he’s empowered to do. Justice Ginsburg had her say for a long time. She lived her life. Is she supposed to rule from the grave through a Ginsburg clone? There is no such right.
The manner in which Harris delivers this little speech is itself very unsettling. See for yourselves. She’s ready to burst into laughter and smiles despite the seriousness of her oration to Ginsburg. She tries to associate herself with Ginsburg by mentioning how close she was to the casket and how personal it was. She uses the occasion of a funeral, which she emphasizes is a somber matter, to make a political thrust at her opponent, a graceless act if there ever was one.6:35 pm on September 28, 2020 Email Michael S. Rozeff