What We Need Now is the Conservative Virtue of Prudence
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing stirred ferocious discussion on whether President Trump should nominate a replacement, or this vacancy should be filled after the inauguration day. People have been comparing what happened in 2016 with what happens now. Democrat-leaning people believe that since the Republican-dominated Senate blocked Obama's nomination in 2016, they should not confirm Trump's nomination right now. The Republican-leaning people, on the other hand, believe that they need more conservative voices in the Supreme Court, and argue that President Trump should nominate a new judge and the Republican-dominated Senate should confirm the nomination.
I think Trump has every right to nominate a Supreme Court judge, and the Senate has every right to confirm the new judge. Constitutionally speaking, their term has not ended, so there is nothing unconstitutional about exercising those powers. However, the question is, should they?
This issue reminds me of the imperial debate before the American Revolution: Did the British Parliament have the right and power to legislate for the American colonies? While the Patriots had to find some creative ways to explain why they believed that the King-in-Parliament represented the supreme authority over the whole British Empire but had no right to tax America, Edmund Burke, the founding thinker of conservatism, argued with the principle of prudence. Burke agreed that the British Parliament had the authority to tax America, but he warned his colleagues in 1769 that “great caution ought to be used in the exercise of all our legislative rights over an object so remote from our eye, and so little connected with our immediate feelings.” Yes, the Parliament had every right and authority to tax America, but the question was: should it exert such authority? For Burke, the answer was no. He believed that it was imprudent to tax America under their situation. Even though the Parliament had the right to do so, it would be wrong to exert this right. Having the power doesn't mean that you must exert that power.
Similarly, while I think President Trump and the Senate have the constitutional right and power to nominate and confirm a new judge, I think it is imprudent and would only add to current political drama to this nation. If the Republican Senates' argument made sense in 2016, they should admit that it is also prudent now to leave the nomination to the president who will win the election in November. With only two months away from the Election day, it would be prudent to wait and see what the latest voice of the people would be. Certainly, it is not natural to ask the Republican to give up the power to nominate a new judge. Throughout history, there were not many people who would give up such power. If the situation reversed, Democrats dominated the Senate and also held the Presidency, it would not be easy for them to give up such power either. However, let's not forget that prudence is a crucial political principle in conservatism, and is an important principle to avoid the abuse of power.
I think Trump has every right to nominate a Supreme Court judge, and the Senate has every right to confirm the new judge. Constitutionally speaking, their term has not ended, so there is nothing unconstitutional about exercising those powers. However, the question is, should they?
This issue reminds me of the imperial debate before the American Revolution: Did the British Parliament have the right and power to legislate for the American colonies? While the Patriots had to find some creative ways to explain why they believed that the King-in-Parliament represented the supreme authority over the whole British Empire but had no right to tax America, Edmund Burke, the founding thinker of conservatism, argued with the principle of prudence. Burke agreed that the British Parliament had the authority to tax America, but he warned his colleagues in 1769 that “great caution ought to be used in the exercise of all our legislative rights over an object so remote from our eye, and so little connected with our immediate feelings.” Yes, the Parliament had every right and authority to tax America, but the question was: should it exert such authority? For Burke, the answer was no. He believed that it was imprudent to tax America under their situation. Even though the Parliament had the right to do so, it would be wrong to exert this right. Having the power doesn't mean that you must exert that power.
Similarly, while I think President Trump and the Senate have the constitutional right and power to nominate and confirm a new judge, I think it is imprudent and would only add to current political drama to this nation. If the Republican Senates' argument made sense in 2016, they should admit that it is also prudent now to leave the nomination to the president who will win the election in November. With only two months away from the Election day, it would be prudent to wait and see what the latest voice of the people would be. Certainly, it is not natural to ask the Republican to give up the power to nominate a new judge. Throughout history, there were not many people who would give up such power. If the situation reversed, Democrats dominated the Senate and also held the Presidency, it would not be easy for them to give up such power either. However, let's not forget that prudence is a crucial political principle in conservatism, and is an important principle to avoid the abuse of power.
Comments
Post a Comment