Biden McConnell Compromise Judicial Appointments

HORSE TRADING, PRACTICAL POLITICS: Biden McConnell Compromise & Judicial Appointments

[Analysis and Opinion. ]

There is a rumored deal between President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Under the terms of the alleged deal, the President would nominate an anti-abortion lawyer Chat Meredith to the bench for the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Several Democrats (we don’t know exactly how many) are screaming bloody murder. They are asking: How could the President betray his pro-choice supporters and the vast majority of Democrats and appoint a pro-life attorney to the bench?

Well, apparently, in return, Senator McConnell has promised not to oppose any of the President’s future federal judicial nominations.

Now, we don’t claim to understand all of ins and outs of this alleged deal, but if it essentially is as stated above we offer a few observations:

Doesn’t this deal show that the President is at least trying to keep his 2020 campaign promise to attempt to unify the nation?

Doesn’t this deal reflect a much-needed attempt by politicians on both sides of the aisle to try to work with the opposing party to make government more functional?

How often in life do we get everything we want?

U.S. District Judges don’t have the final say on abortion. There are two whole levels of courts above them. Moreover, even in the Eastern District of Kentucky there are other several judges. This means that Meredith, if he is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, may not even get an abortion case of any real significance. And given the very recent Dobbs decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, it would seem that the abortion issue is now up to the legislatures of the States and/or the federal government to decide, and not the courts. Given this, is the Meredith nomination at all significant when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Moreover, throughout history, Presidents have given deference to the home state senior senator when it comes to judicial nominations for judges who will sit in the nominating senator’s state. In short, the President and Senator McConnell are basically doing what had always been done in the “good old days” when government functioned more effectively than it has in the recent past. Back when partisanship, although always lurking in the wings, was more often put on the back burner for the good of the country and to get things done.

And this part is really perplexing. Doesn’t it sound like the President is going to be able to appoint more of his own party’s preferred judges (as in plural) elsewhere, in exchange for the Meredith appointment in Kentucky? And doesn’t it sound like these agreed upon Presidential appointments may also be made to the Court of Appeals (which is a court of far more significance when it comes to setting legal precedent) or maybe even higher?

Some politicians, for all their good intentions, seem not only to be preachy, but totally oblivious to the nature of reality, being too interested in political correctness and not offending their political base—particularly after a huge loss on a big issue like abortion. In other words, they are too willing to let perfection get in the way of the good.

Pragmatists and realists know that there’s no free lunch. That there are costs and benefits to every course of action. Payola is illegal. But a certain amount of legislative horse-trading is often needed to get things done. The view here is the President and Senator McConnell are doing America a service in this instance. This country sorely needs more bipartisan action to bring it together.

David Dixon Lentz July 2, 2022