SCOTUS Nomination Hypocrisy or Not

In February 2016 after the death of Justice Scalia, then President Obama nominated Justice Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

There was a dispute as to whether the Senate should take up the nomination. 

In September 2020 after the death of Justice Ginsberg, then President Trump nominated Justice Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Again there was a dispute as to whether the Senate should take up the nomination. 

Among those disputing the issues, I have chosen 4 people (I was at one time only going to discuss one person but it makes more sense to discuss a quartet) whose opinions on whether the Senate should vote on confirmation in the 4th or 8th year of a President's term) were as follows:

Senator Lindsey Graham: 2016 Against; 2020 For

Senator Mitch McConnell: 2016 Against; 2020 For

Senator Charles Schumer: 2016 For 2020 Against

former Vice President Biden: 2016 For; 2020 Against (then Senator Biden was against in 1992).

Graham and Biden are in the first image.  Schumer and McConnell are in the second image.

I will discuss the Graham opinion change first since it is relatively simple and overtly stated.

Then I will discuss the McConnell opinion which is more complicated.

Regarding Graham:  2016, Senator Graham was specific and said that  he opposed a nomination in that year and would oppose a nomination in 2020 (see the collection of quotes link below).  In 2020 he had changed his mind and sent a letter (see link below) to various Democratic Senators explaining why. His reasoning was that Democratic smearing of Justice Kavanaugh in 2018 required a the change in position.  I don't follow this reasoning as it seems a non sequitur, something like, 'I won't pay you the money I owe you since you insulted me'.  However, it may make sense to Graham and I can't find any response from the addressees objecting to the reasoning.

McConnell's 2016 statements regarding the nomination to the SOTUS that year include conditions or caveats. For example, in one statement (the collection of quotes link below) he referred to an appointed by a lame duck (Obama was term limited in 2016, Trump is not term limited in 2020, although he would be a lame duck if he lost the election in November 2020). In another statement (the collection of quotes link below) McConnell notes that in 2016 the President was a Democrat and the Senate was majority Republican (as of this post the President is a Republican and the Senate is also majority Republican). I don't understand this reasoning entirely although it seems to me it has more substance than Graham's reasoning.

This brings me to the Schumer and Biden opinion change.  I have been looking for them to defend their opinion change and haven't found any. Neither have I found third party defense of their opinion change nor any reporters who even asked them about it. Now, the focus of the news is the confirmation of Justice Barrett and I suppose there will be no defense of the opinion change.

I would rate all but McConnell as hypocrites to some extent but Schumer and Biden more so since they feel no need to even acknowledge the issue. I would rank Graham as slightly less of a hypocrite than Schumer or Biden as he has a defense even if I don't think it makes sense. I'm giving McConnell a break on this since he does make a substantive case that the two situations are different. 

Finally, I acknowledge the Babylon Bee's take on this:

Nation Surprised To Learn All Politicians Are Hypocrites

The 1992 position of then Senator Biden is discussed here.

Senator Graham's Letter re 2020 situation is here.

Collection of quotes from 2016 and 2020 is here.

 Washington Post OP Ed on this calling McConnell an 'apex predator' is here.

A defense of McConnell  is here

Senator Cruz expands on the 'one party holds the Presidency, the other the Senate' reason here.

 

Babylonbee humor on this is here.

Pelosi Accused of Social Distancing Hypocrisy - I think not

 

On August 31 Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi had her hair done at a hair salon. I take this as a shampoo, coloring and blow dry.

Normally this is not news. However, during the quarantine months, this may be news.

Apparently, Pelosi contracted with a hairdresser who had a contract with a hair salon. The hairdresser did shampooing and other tasks in the hair salon.  The local, San Francisco, ordinances do not permit this and in fact, only on September 1 did the local ordinance allow hair shampooing in and outside setting. In the image, the hair dresser is wearing a mask but Pelosi is not.

Several columnist call this hypocrisy, some even call it "Queen of Hypocrisy".

There have been many episodes of this kind, for ex  ample, Dr. Fauci in the stands at a baseball game in July not wearing a mask. 

In general there are two problems with calling it hypocrisy. Although both Fauci and Pelosi have made pronouncements like "wear facemasks, be safe, social distance", these statements are not absolute, e.g., you don't have to wear face masks if it is just you and your spouce. Anyway the first problem with calling it hypocrisy is that neither Fauci nor Pelosi has authority over local ordinances. The second is that such ordinances are, as noted, complex and have all kinds of caveats about, for example, requiring mask when social distancing is not possible. 

Pelosi claims not to know what the social distancing ordinances are for hair dressers and that is a believable claim. However, she might have made a more robust apology and noted the suffering of the nail salon and other similarly affected business owners.

In Fauci's case, the woman to his left is his wife and he doesn't need to mask protect himself from her. The person to his right is perhaps endangered by Fauci's non mask wearing but Fauci claims that he was eating and drinking at the time and you can't do this masked. This seems reasonable although given that the stands were essentially empty they could have spread out a bit more and still been able to talk to each other.  Fauci's case is weakened because when he  threw out the ceremonial first ball of the game he wore a mask while being 60 feet from the catcher but then after the pitch he did get closer so it would have been mask-required then.

Anyway, the distance of Pelosi and Fauci from authority to issue ordinances and the complexity of the ordinances do not allow a simple verdict of hypocrisy.

Post Script: Pelosi now thinks the salon should apologize to her. 

 

Post Post Script: Now Salon Owner says she is receiving death threats.

So, although not a hypocrite on this point, Pelosi seems to be a bad person.

Powerline calls it "Queen of..." here.
More complete news of this incident is here.

Article on the Fauci incident is here.

Fauci's ceremonial first pitch is here. 

 

Actress Kristy Swanson did wear a face mask for her shampoo and hair work here