This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Stony Brook chapter.
It’s no secret that, for better or for worse, the Democratic and Republican members of our government do not see eye to eye on many things. You know something, that’s what makes this country great. We can believe in what we want and chances are we are able to find people that represent our beliefs. Although the two parties may not necessarily have the same values, they both share the fact they participate in political hypocrisy.
If you turn on mainstream media you will hear statements such as: “Well the reasons the Democrats failed was because of the Republicans!” or “well the reasons the Republicans failed was because of the Democrats!”
Child-like arguments such as the ones you see above are alive and flourishing in our society today. A very simple message is plastered all over news channels; do what is best for you at the time and blame the other party. Don’t believe me? Check out a few examples that all haven taken place during our very own-lifetime in regards to replacing a Supreme Court Judge towards the end of a President’s Term:
Senator Charles Schumer, New York (Democrat)
2007: (543 left before the 2008 election) “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream, rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
2016: “Whether Republicans agree or not with my evaluation of whichever candidate the president puts forward, they have a constitutional obligation to hold hearings, conduct a full confirmation process and vote on the nominee based on his or her merits.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican)
2007: “Even with ‘lame duck’ presidents, there is an historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees – especially circuit court nominees.”
2016: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont (Democrat)
2006: “We will institute the Thurmond Rule, yes,” referring to the unofficial principle that judicial nominees shouldn’t be confirmed in the lead-up to an election.
2016: “There is no such thing as the Thurmond Rule,” Leahy said on CNN the day after Scalia’s death.
Senator Charles Grassley, Iowa (Republican)
2008: “The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”
2016: “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year. Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court justice.”
There are always three sides to every story and in this case it’s the Republican side, the Democratic side, and the truth. It’s our job as educated individuals to look into the facts behind every story and not just accept what the news decides to tell us. As a society I hope we choose to educate ourselves on not only what’s in front of us but explore the history of what has been going on and why things have been happening.