While the next few weeks promise to be some of the most divisive and tumultuous in the history of politics, some fights were decided as long ago as February of 2019.
Following the passing of Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg this weekend, members of Congress and political pundits from across the spectrums of party and ideology have attempted to predict the process, impact, and outcome of filling her seat on the Supreme Court.
But Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris made her decision about how to vote almost two years ago when she promised not to even consider any of President Trump's nominees for federal courts. Harris claimed that Trump's administration was "packing the court that protected Dreamers from deportation and blocked the unconstitutional transgender military ban."
"We need nominees who will uphold equality and justice," she continued. "Until a fair process is in place, I will oppose every nominee to an appellate court." Harris never fully explained what that fair process was, as there is already a process of advice and consent that goes through the Senate Judiciary Committee before the president's nominee is put to a vote.
This Administration is packing the court that protected Dreamers from deportation and blocked the unconstitutional transgender military ban. We need nominees who will uphold equality and justice. Until a fair process is in place, I will oppose every nominee to an appellate court.— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) January 31, 2019
In fact, Sen. Harris is an active and vocal member of that committee, cementing her legacy as one of the primary antagonizers of Brett Kavanaugh throughout the course of his beleaguered Supreme Court confirmation process in 2018.
For someone demanding a "fair process," it seems as a particularly weaponized member of the president's opposing political party she should probably not refuse to even consider his nominations. Although she casts her vote as "no" before the vote is even held, she continues to participate in the hearings, asking vicious, rhetorical, and confrontational questions of each nominee she has no intention of moving forward.
Harris's demand for that "fair process" will likely not be repeated as Congressional Democrats plot to undermine whoever the president plans to name as his nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already said that the party has many "arrows in their quiver" that they are willing to use to attack the president – and his nominee for the court – despite not knowing who that person even is.
Declaring her intention to contradict and obstruct the Trump administration is par for the course for Harris, whose political ambitions seem to have overtaken her interest in following the guidance of the Constitution while serving as a senator.
But Harris's disinterest in even attempting to give Trump's nominee a fair chance is echoed by her entire party. No one currently expects even one Democrat to fairly question a potential pick for the Supreme Court. Trump has said that he will announce that person, likely a woman, either Thursday or Friday.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to push forward with a vote to confirm that nominee ahead of the presidential election on November 3.