By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following her confirmation by the Senate, Sarah E. Pitkin will now serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Her appointment was secured despite the absence of several Democratic senators whose votes would have created a tie. Pitkin’s prior representation of Donald Trump in significant legal matters, including his presidential immunity case and the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, was a point of contention during her confirmation hearings, where she declined to identify the 2020 election winner and remained noncommittal on recusal from future Trump-related cases.
Read the original article here
The confirmation of a Trump-appointed lawyer to a lifetime federal judgeship, specifically the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, has sparked considerable debate and frustration, with much of the discourse centering on the reasons behind this outcome. A prevailing narrative suggests that the absence of several Democratic senators during the crucial vote was a significant factor, effectively enabling the nomination to pass. This perspective implies that had all the Democratic senators been present to cast their “no” votes, the outcome might have been different, potentially leading to a tie.
The specific vote count highlighted a close margin, with nine senators absent, including five Democrats and four Republicans. The Democrats who were absent were Bennet, King, Luján, Sanders, and Warnock. If these five senators had been present and voted against the nominee, the tally would have been a tie, 48-48. This scenario, in the eyes of some, represented a missed opportunity to block the nomination and prevent the appointee from securing a lifetime tenure on the bench.
However, the notion that Democratic absences were the sole or even primary reason for the confirmation is met with strong counterarguments. Critics of this framing point out that even with all Democrats present, the vote would have resulted in a tie. In the U.S. Senate, a tie-breaking vote can be cast by the Vice President. This means that even in a 48-48 scenario, the Vice President could have still broken the tie in favor of the Republican nominee, thus confirming the judge.
Furthermore, the argument that it was solely Democratic absences overlooks the agency of the Republican party. The fact that 48 Republicans voted in favor of the nomination is seen by many as the more direct cause of the confirmation. This perspective argues that placing blame on Democrats for not stopping a Republican-led initiative shifts responsibility away from the party actively pushing for the appointment. It’s akin to blaming the fire department for not saving the hundredth house when the arsonist is the one holding the match.
Another layer of complexity is introduced by the fact that several Republican senators were also absent. The argument is made that if all senators had been present, the dynamic might have shifted in ways that are not easily predictable. Some suggest that if the Democrats had shown up in full force, certain Republicans who were absent might have also attended, potentially altering the vote count in unforeseen ways.
The role of a specific Republican senator, Murkowski, who voted against the nomination, is also a point of discussion. It’s posited that if the vote had been closer or if additional Republican senators had been absent, she might have switched her vote to align with her party’s majority, thereby ensuring the confirmation. The idea that the nominee was going to be confirmed regardless of Democratic attendance underscores a sense of inevitability felt by some observers.
The concept of lifetime appointments for judges is also a point of contention, with some finding it to be an outdated or problematic aspect of the system. From a Norwegian perspective, for instance, lifetime tenure is viewed as extreme, and there’s a belief that alternative models, such as fixed terms or a more regular public position, could ensure judicial independence without granting perpetual tenure. This raises broader questions about how to maintain judicial integrity while also ensuring accountability and responsiveness to societal changes.
The framing of the narrative, particularly the emphasis on “Democratic Absences,” is seen by many as a deliberate attempt to misdirect blame and absolve Republicans of responsibility. This “ridiculous framing” is criticized for intentionally bending over backward to assign fault to Democrats for something they did not initiate or vote for. The underlying sentiment is that Republicans, who control the legislative agenda, should be held accountable for their actions, rather than pointing fingers at the opposition party for not successfully thwarting them at every turn.
Ultimately, the confirmation of this particular judge highlights a systemic issue and a partisan divide. The frustration stems not just from the individual appointee but from the broader political climate that allows such appointments to occur. The feeling is that the Republican party has a clear strategy in place to shape the judiciary for decades, and the perceived inaction or missteps of Democrats in blocking these efforts only exacerbate the problem. The call to action for many is to focus on the party that voted for the confirmation and to find ways to counteract these long-term impacts, even if it means questioning the effectiveness of current democratic processes.