A letter to the editor for the Sept. 30, 2020 edition of the Herald-Pioneer - a look at an inconvenient truth

Here's another 'inconvenient truth'

To the editor:

Mitch McConnell, back in 2016, blocked Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, saying "The tradition going back to the 1880s has been if a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, and there is a different party in control of the Senate than the presidency, it is not filled."

We now have another vacancy during an election year and McConnell has stated that Trump's nominee will receive a vote because the situation is different as the Senate and the presidency are of the same party.

The Herald/Pioneer.

Democrats and many in the mainstream media are working very hard to obscure this distinction, but the New York Times actually crystalized this fact, most likely inadvertently, in their article on May 29, 2019, "The Shifting Standards of Mitch McConnell."

Designed as a hit piece, it is clear by any objective reader that the only "shifting standard" is the author trying to obscure and minimize this quote by emphasizing "that was a nuance that Mr. McConnell and his allies stressed infrequently during the Garland blockade."

It was not a "nuance." It was the justification and it was clearly stated by Mr. McConnell. It was not "stressed infrequently," it was reported infrequently and dismissed frequently. The media choosing to dismiss and minimize his stated reasoning does not make it any less true.

That same NY Times article also goes on to remind us that it was actually the Democrat-controlled Senate, led by Harry Reid (and supported at the time by current Minority Leader Chuck Schumer), that eliminated the judicial filibuster. McConnell was right again back then as he warned the Democratic majority that taking that egregious and historic action would create a slippery slope and urged them to not do it. They didn't listen as usual and that aggressive rule change has come back to bite them by allowing a record number of first-term confirmed Trump-appointed judges. That has included two Supreme Court confirmations, and soon, a third.

The Times' article pontificated and predicted that if "Mr. McConnell forged ahead with a nominee in 2020, Democrats could do little to stop him. Rules changes since 2013 have eroded the power of the filibuster on nominations and left it strictly in the hands of the majority to push through nominees on the strength of 51 votes."

I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. I actually wrote in Stephan Curry. Trump's antics and behavior put me squarely in the "Never Trumper" category. I always thought there was plenty of reason to vote against Trump. And I couldn't imagine Trump becoming a sympathetic figure.

However, Donald Trump has had to endure breathless, high-octane negative and often unfair coverage with daily "bombshells." Coupled with the recent tacit media approval of rioting and looting has left me with no choice. I suspect I am far from the only "Never Trumper" that feels this way.

Who would have ever predicted, back in 2013, that the path to overturning what many think is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history, Roe v. Wade, would not have been possible without the help of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump? Strange times indeed.

Todd Moore


You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts. Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.