The Supreme Court of the United States can be a somber place — but never more so than [Monday] when the justices reconvened for the first time without the late Antonin Scalia. Absent its largest personality, the Court struggled to adjust to two weeks of oral arguments without its longest-serving member. Black drapery still hangs over Scalia’s empty chair, which is now the focal point not just of the room but of a fierce battle over the nomination process.

After a brief pause for one of the most monumental funerals in recent memory, Washington is back at it, debating what will be done — or not done — about Scalia’s replacement. The president is welcome to submit a nomination, Republicans have said. Just as the Senate is free to reject it. After all, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pointed out, that was then-Senator Joe Biden’s view all the way back in 1992. He, too, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — and, in that job, it seems he had a surprising amount in common with the current GOP leadership.

“This chairman’s guidance is particularly instructive,” Senator Grassley said Monday on the Senate floor, “because he delivered his remarks in a presidential election year, during a time of divided government. The… year was 1992. We had no Supreme Court vacancy. ‘It is my view,’” Biden argued, “‘that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks… President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. … Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.’”

Funny how things change with the transfer of power. Now, suddenly, Biden is arguing that his own comments weren’t an “accurate description” of his views! Exactly what is inaccurate about them? That they weren’t made when Democrats were in the minority? “Senate consideration of a nominee under these [election year] circumstances,” Biden could not have been clearer, “is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.” Let’s face it: Democrats aren’t fighting Republicans on these points — they’re fighting themselves. Unfortunately for them, these elastic principles are also haunting President Obama, Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — all of whom are on the record opposing a Supreme Court appointment (some well before an election year!).

“Nowhere in [the Constitution],” Senator Reid insisted in 2005, “does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.” Then-Senator Obama even fought the Supreme Court nominee of the president who had just been elected! “There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee … [and] there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.”

He “regrets” his opposition now, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said last week. I’m sure he does — but only because what was politically expedient then is politically damaging now. Perhaps Chuck Schumer summed up the liberal ethos best when he declared [Monday], “It doesn’t matter what anybody said in the past.” Especially if they’re politicians looking for a convenient way to flex their views.

Originally published here.

The Charlotte Letters: LGBT

If you’re wondering when Charlotte’s new bathroom ordinance goes into effect, try April Fools Day. The irony wasn’t lost on the measure’s opponents, who left [Monday] night’s city council meeting stunned and frustrated by the 7-4 passage of a bill the community sank last year. After three emotional hours of public comment, and a room so full the Fire Department had to close the doors, the Council’s newly elected liberals made their presence felt by enacting a bill that not only punishes free speech and religious liberty but opens the door — literally — to gender chaos in public facilities. Like other controversial sexual orientation-gender identity (SOGI) measures, Charlotte’s not only orders businesses to celebrate a radical definition of sexuality (or be punished), but allows men to use women’s showers and restrooms (and vice-versa) based on their “perceived” gender.

A whopping 140 speakers took turns at the microphone, including some fed-up local parents, who couldn’t believe the city would jeopardize their children’s innocence and safety for the sake of political correctness. You call this a “non-discrimination” bill, one woman said, but “please don’t discriminate against me and my children! … If one child becomes a victim of this, shame on all of you.” Another woman took the chance to slam the process, telling the mayor, “Your community forum was a sham!” By night’s end, all of these concerns fell on deaf ears and the majority voted against the public’s wishes to punish anyone with natural views about gender, biology and sexuality. “Everyone is required to use the bathroom of their gender,” Council conservative Ed Driggs fired back. “You can’t get more equal than that.”

While the LGBT crowd celebrates the victory, Governor Pat McCrory (R) is making it clear that the battle isn’t over. Under North Carolina law, the state legislature has the power to stamp out the ordinance, strip out the bathroom portion, or send the whole measure to voters for their approval. In fact, he warned the Council of this before it even voted, pointing out that the members’ approval could trigger “immediate” action from the General Assembly. “It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by changing basic restroom and locker room norms,” he wrote to Republican councilmen, “but also citizens from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte. This shift in policy could also create major public safety issues by putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.”

Originally published here.