In 1987, an impactful anti-drug commercial illustrated a powerful message about the influence of parental behavior on children. In it, an angry father confronts his teenage son, who candidly responds, “I learned it by watching you!” This sentiment resonates today amidst the backdrop of contemporary political discourse on Capitol Hill, particularly when examining the actions and rhetoric of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Recently, McConnell drew criticism from his Democratic colleagues for accusing others of engaging in “political games” concerning judicial nominations, even while he himself has a long history of politicizing the judiciary for partisan gains.
During a Senate floor session, McConnell expressed concern about the potential implications for two U.S. circuit court judges who may reconsider their retirement plans in light of the upcoming 2024 presidential elections. He branded the political maneuvering around judicial nominations as undermining the judiciary’s integrity and labeled it unprecedented. However, this claim rings hollow when one considers McConnell’s own role in shaping the judicial landscape over the last decade. His assertion that “never, never before” has a circuit judge un-retired after a presidential election can easily be met with the retort, “From you, all right? We learned it by watching you!”
The irony of McConnell’s complaints becomes even more pronounced when reflecting on his actions during President Obama’s administration. Following the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a moderate judge, to fill the vacancy. Rather than allowing the nomination process to proceed, McConnell initiated a blockade that lasted nearly an entire year, effectively denying a sitting president his right to appoint a successor. His tactical maneuvering in anticipation of a Republican victory not only violated longstanding Senate norms but also exemplified a new standard of politicization within the federal judiciary.
Four years later, as the 2020 election approached, McConnell and fellow Republicans rapidly confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, entirely reversing the principles they purportedly valued regarding judicial nominations. This action was taken amidst early voting, which presented notable ethical questions concerning the handling of significant judicial appointments during an election period. Such a blatant contradiction served to further illustrate how far McConnell has seemingly strayed from any semblance of nonpartisan equity in these appointments.
The ongoing political climate demonstrates that McConnell’s approach has considerable implications for the federal judiciary’s integrity and public perception. The lines between judicial independence and political influence have become increasingly blurred under his leadership. As such, when McConnell characterizes the actions of others as “political games,” it raises an important question about accountability and responsibility for the current state of judicial politicization. Those looking to engage in political tactics today are arguably following a script authored by the very person who now finds himself decrying such behavior.
Ultimately, the landscape of judicial nominations in the United States has been irrevocably altered by McConnell’s strategic maneuvering. With a distinctly partisan lens now applied to the judiciary, the potential for judicial independence and impartiality diminishes. As the body politic continues to evolve, the actions of prominent figures like McConnell inevitably inform the behavior of future leaders, reflecting the message of the classic 1987 ad: that the youth learn from the examples set before them. Thus, in the context of contemporary politics, it is vital to scrutinize those who criticize political maneuvering while simultaneously engaging in similar tactics themselves.
