By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a retracted NPR report that Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner urged Democrats and moderates to block any Supreme Court nominees put forth by President Donald Trump during the next two years. Platner invoked Mitch McConnell’s obstruction of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016 as precedent for this strategy. This call to action comes amid speculation about Alito’s potential retirement, which could significantly impact the court’s ideological balance if Democrats gain Senate control. The NPR report, later corrected by correspondent Nina Totenberg, mistakenly identified Alito’s retirement due to a misinterpretation of an announcement.
Read the original article here
Maine’s Platner is making a strong call for his potential Senate colleagues to take a firm stance against future Supreme Court nominees, arguing that a proactive approach is necessary to counter the current ideological leanings of the court. This perspective stems from a deep-seated frustration with what is perceived as a historically imbalanced court and a desire to prevent further entrenchment of conservative ideology for generations to come. The sentiment is that Democrats have not held a majority on the Supreme Court since 1969, a significant period during which the court’s composition has shifted considerably.
The argument is being framed as a direct response to past actions, particularly the Republican strategy of blocking nominees during election years and then swiftly confirming their own selections. This “tit-for-tat” mentality is gaining traction, with many believing that Democrats have been too passive for too long, taking the “high road” which has ultimately led to a court that is seen as out of sync with the American populace. The suggestion is that if Democrats gain a Senate majority, they should indeed block all future Republican nominees, even if it means operating with a temporarily reduced court.
The rationale behind this aggressive stance is to prevent what is feared to be a permanent shift towards a conservative majority on the court. The idea is that a short-term imbalance, such as a 4-3 court, would be preferable to a long-term, potentially unassailable 6-3 conservative majority. This is seen as a necessary corrective measure, akin to a “course correction” rather than outright “court packing,” to counteract what some view as the “malice” of past Republican actions that have allegedly stacked the court.
There’s a palpable sense of urgency, with some arguing that if Democrats don’t act decisively when they have the opportunity, their future legislative efforts will be rendered meaningless. This perspective often highlights the perceived hostility of some current justices towards the Constitution as written, suggesting that three new appointments are needed to counterbalance them. The impeachment of sitting justices is also being discussed as a drastic but necessary option, followed by filling those vacant seats.
The call to block future nominees is also tied to a broader desire for political reciprocity. The argument is that Democrats should simply do to Republicans what Republicans have done to Democrats in recent years. The actions of Mitch McConnell in refusing to seat Merrick Garland under President Obama while then rushing to confirm President Trump’s nominees are cited as the primary catalyst for this shift in strategy. This is viewed not as a partisan power play, but as a necessary response to what is characterized as “disgusting and partisan” behavior that has ushered in an era of political absolutism.
Some supporters of this approach see it as a way to contrast candidates with more moderate figures, such as Susan Collins, who is seen as inevitably voting for whomever the Republican party puts forward, regardless of perceived qualifications. The hope is that a candidate like Platner, by advocating for a more confrontational stance, can differentiate himself and appeal to voters who are tired of what they see as Republican obstructionism and partisan maneuvering.
However, there are also practical considerations being raised. The success of any blocking strategy hinges on Democrats securing a Senate majority. Without that majority, any calls to block nominees are seen as premature and largely symbolic. The current rules, especially the elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, mean that a simple majority is sufficient for confirmation. Therefore, the ability to block nominees is directly dependent on controlling the Senate.
The discussion also touches upon the historical context of the court, with some noting that Republican-appointed justices have, at times, been more liberal than expected, and that liberals historically dominated the court until the late 1980s. This historical perspective fuels the concern that the current trend is a deliberate and sustained effort to shift the court’s ideology permanently. The role of figures like Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society is also brought up as central to the strategy of “stacking the court” with conservatives.
Ultimately, the call from Maine’s Platner, as interpreted, is for a fundamental shift in how Democrats engage with the Supreme Court nomination process. It’s a call to abandon what is perceived as a losing strategy of deference and to embrace a more assertive, reciprocal approach that mirrors the tactics employed by Republicans. The goal is not just to influence individual nominations, but to fundamentally alter the court’s composition and, by extension, its future rulings, to align it more closely with what is believed to be the will of the American people.