Should Secretary Hillary Clinton Nominate Her Own Pick To Be U.S. Supreme Court Justice And Also Replace FBI Director James Comey?

Considering everything surrounding the FBI that has happened during the final 11 days prior to this year’s presidential election, should Secretary Hillary Clinton nominate someone other than Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court? I think that she should. And I am fairly certain that Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders would prefer that she select someone else as well. I won’t go further and presume to state how these senators might feel about whether or not she should replace FBI Director James B. Comey because I have no real feel as to their feelings about him to even begin to speculate; but from my perspective, I believe that she should also replace him.

My position concerning these individuals neither means that I believe that Judge Garland and Director Comey are not qualified to hold these positions nor is it meant to unfairly sully their character in any way. Permit me to explain my rationale for my position on this issue: I will start with Director Comey. With the stakes being so high with regard to the path that America needs to take as we move forward; in light of the fact that Director Comey is a Republican – or at least was one recently – and in light of the decision that he made 11 days prior to this election to release information on the Democratic candidate, which implied that he might reopen the investigation into her so called email scandal while refusing to release any information at all on the Republican candidate, I contend that there is just cause to closely scrutinize his motive for taking this action and seriously consider replacing him.

Based on the above misstep alone – especially since he took it in spite of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s recommendation against doing so, I believe that he should be replaced. But there is more. Even after this mistake during the final 11 days of the election, the FBI released more potentially damaging information related to the Democratic nominee’s campaign with even fewer days remaining before the election. Further, information that could have a negative impact on the Hillary Clinton campaign continues even now to dribble from the FBI. Under the circumstances, whether the promulgation of this information is condoned by Director Comey or stems from leaks, his credibility as the head of the FBI is ruined.

Perhaps, you might say, one can argue that Director Comey should be replaced but what does all of this have to do with Judge Garland? Here is what it has to do with him. Judge Garland is also a Republican and he was, in part, nominated by President Obama as a compromise candidate because he was thought to be a non-controversial choice that the Republican Senate would move quickly to confirm. This conjecture by the Obama administration has proven to be wrong because President Obama nominated Judge Garland on March 16, 2016 and as of November 3, 2016 Republicans still have not confirmed him.

Instead, they initially talked about confirming him in a lame duck session if the Republican nominee is not elected to be president. Now, they are talking about leaving the number of Supreme Court Justices at eight until a Republican president is finally elected. The bottom line is that, whether Director Comey’s actions were the result of an accident, incompetence, or his loyalty to the Republican Party they likely impact – as they should – on the thinking of many Democrats as to how Judge Garland might function given a similar situation in the Supreme Court.

This does not make Judge Garland a bad person but neither does it make Democrats bad people who, regardless of how well respected that he is on both sides of the isle, speculate about what he would do if confronted with this kind of situation in the Supreme Court. Instead, it is my contention that it makes all parties concerned human.

And, again, with the stakes being so high with regard to how America will move forward, I am among those Democrats who believe that Secretary Clinton should nominate a more liberal candidate. Someone whom she feels comfortable with, can at least trust to avoid conducting themselves as FBI Director Comey has conducted himself, and who will to the best of their ability make decisions based on their interpretation of the law and conduct themselves in accordance with respect for the highly esteemed office that they have been entrusted to hold.

Even if Secretary Clinton is elected, if the election does not also result in the election of a senate controlled by Democrats, she would likely not be able to get her candidates confirmed. As regards Judge Garland, even if Republicans decide to select the option to confirm him in a lame duck session, if it is possible to withdraw his name, Secretary Clinton should do that. The Republicans should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too – as they have become so accustom to doing, by being pliable only if the situation is handled based on their rules and only if they are obliged to do so.

For far too long Republicans have spoken with pride about refusing to accept anything that even looks like compromise and if not given their way 100% opted for Washington gridlock instead. And for far too long Democrats have chosen to be the good guys (some might refer to this ‘good guys’ label as the adults in the room while others might refer to it as spineless) and accept these Republicans’ antics with only passive gripes and complaints. But regardless of your title preference for these well-intentioned Democrats, they must stop being passive and stand up to these Republicans or they will continue to bully them.

Common sense would dictate that bullying Republicans would come to their senses and agree to work to find common ground and compromise. However, the scary thing is that it is plausible that playing politics for so long where compromise is concerned, with little to no resistance from Democrats, has deprived them of common sense. Common sense has long since left and so now trying to force Republicans to accept compromise is like playing a game of chicken with a kamikaze pilot; their whole mission is focused on winning whether or not they survive the crash.

For those Republicans who at any cost want less government, smaller government, virtually no government at all or in whatever terms you want to put it, this game of chicken could be a long sought after and welcomed challenge. What if Democrats do not swerve in time to avoid the crash threatened by these self-made kamikazes? What would happen then? Would America just ultimately self-destruct? It is no wonder that they are afraid. Maybe I should be afraid too; and possibly would be if I were in their shoes and had their grave responsibility in this matter.

But, in the heat of my emotions and concern that Democrats should not tolerate being bullied by Republicans, I digress. This article is meant to drive home the point as to why Secretary Clinton, if she is so fortunate to win this election, should replace FBI Director Comey and why she should also withdraw Judge Merrick Garland’s name from consideration for Supreme Court Justice and replace him with her own nominee.

So I will get back to the point; based on all of the previously mentioned reasons, Secretary Clinton should submit the name of someone of her choice to replace Director Comey and submit her own pick to be Supreme Court Justice even if Republicans obstruct the confirmation of her choices to replace these individuals. Because just like their standard bearer, Donald Trump, has so skillfully done over the years in many of his battles with the courts via blocking parrying and delaying until things were resolved in his favor Washington Republicans have obstructed President Obama’s agenda masterfully for eight years. So a Clinton decision to replace Director Comey and submit her own pick for Supreme Court Justice can’t make matters any worse…or can it?

Eulus Dennis – author, Operation Rubik’s Cube and Living Between The Line