Senate Judiciary hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, nominated to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, ended Friday. There was some pointed questioning by Democrats, and Sheldon Whitehouse even gave an excellent (and chilling) primer on how dark-monied groups, abetted by huge donations made possible by the Citizens United & McCutcheon Supreme court decisions, have dominated the judicial nomination process. But it ended with Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) giving Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chair of the judiciary committee, a hug.
In February of 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died. 31 Republican Senators, who went on the record then saying that seat should be filled by the next president, now say they'll vote to confirm Barrett. Obama waited 32 days to nominate Garland; barely more time will have passed between Justice Ruth Bader Ginisburg's death on September 18th and Judge Barret's confirmation vote on October 23rd. They don't care about decorum; and they don't care about their own hypocrisy. But I think those Senators are drastically underestimating how much it bothers people.
The Supreme Court is unlike any other institution: it's a lifetime appointment to the body that holds the final say on right and wrong in this country. And it's disgusting to see it become so politicized, to see those last norms of fairness shredded by a brazenly hypocritical, power-hungry Republican Senate majority.
Here are two things we can do, still. One is textbook engagement on a most basic level. The other is a bit outside the box.
First, if you live in a state with a Republican Senator or two, call them. Email them. Tweet at them, if that's your thing. Tell your friends and family too. It has to be now, and it has to be a huge, undeniable wave. Make sure it's your Senator, otherwise you give all of them a pretext to ignore it. Call them at their Washington offices, call them at their state offices. But call them. If you email, email them. If you tweet, tweet at them.
Washington contact info for all Senators is available here, and here via 270towin.com (where you can select by party, by state, and by how competitive the race is). But you can also scroll down to the bottom of the page to find their Washington, D.C. office phone; their email; and their twitter handle. Especially if your Senator is running now, and even moreso if they're running in a tight race, call them. Please, call your Senators. Do it today.
The second thing we can do is more ambitious but could prove very effective. I'm just some random shmoe with an idea. But hear me out.
Two Senators - Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - have already stated publicly that they won't vote to confirm Barrett. If just two more vote against, Barrett doesn't get confirmed.
For a moment, imagine what would happen if there was clear polling, in states with Republican Senators, that showed real, significant public opposition to confirming Barrett, especially in a number of states with extremely tight Senate races. Imagine those incumbent Republican Senators being forced to answer questions about why they were going to vote to confirm Barrett despite the will of their constituents. Especially if it was a seriously close race (as several of them are), it could really make them think twice.
Those polls aren't being done right now; but they could be.
Recently, a small group of plucky Democratic field workers crowdfunded a poll of the Alaska Senate race. They thought it might be close; and no outlet had polled it, or planned to. It wasn't on anyone's radar. They raised $8000, and did it; and, lo and behold, the race was close. (Go figure; conventional wisdom was wrong. Shocker.) Ironically, it's a beautiful example of democratizing the political process.
They used Public Policy Polling, who do automated polls. They say they can get them done in as little as 24 hours, and their website advertises them as costing only $2000-$5000. This could happen fast.
These need polishing by a professional pollster, but here are a few questions to ask:
In 2016, Senate Republicans stopped Merrick Garland from receiving a hearing following his March 2016 nomination to the Supreme Court on the grounds that, in an election year, the seat should be filled by the next president. Now, 31 of those Senators are on the record reversing their view, saying they would vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett although she was only nominated six weeks before the election. Do you approve or disapprove of the decision to hold a vote on Barrett's nomination? (strongly approve/somewhat approve/strongly disapprove/no opinion)
[This next question to be posed to constituents of those 31 Senators who reversed their publicly held view that a Supreme Court justice should not be considered during an election year, but now say they'll vote to confirm Barrett.]
Senator _________[for the state being polled] in 2016 said we should not confirm a justice until after the inauguration, but now say they intend to confirm Barrett. If Senator __________ does vote to confirm, would you have a better or worse view of them? (much better/a bit better/a bit worse/much worse/no change)
Do you agree or disagree that the current vacant Supreme Court justice seat should be filled by the next president? (Strongly agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/strongly disagree/no opinion)
How important is it to you that elected officials express consistent views? (Strongly prefer/somewhat prefer/don't care)
Right now, Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Kansas, Arizona, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina, and even Texas have extremely close Senate races with Republican incumbents. Poll those states; and then confront those Senators with the results. Make them go on the record about their own hypocrisy, and about ignoring what their voters want.
There's one more Senator, who occupies a special place in all this; who isn't up for re-election now, but who is making moves toward running for President again: Senator Mitt Romney.
Senator Mitt Romney has stated that he would vote to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court; would his decision to confirm her make you more or less likely to support him in a possible future run for president? (Much more likely/somewhat more likely/somewhat less likely/much less likely/no change)
This question could be included in every state poll; but really, it would be great to see it asked nationwide. Romney has proven himself to be ever-mindful of public opinion. If he is thinking of running for president (and I'll eat my hat if he doesn't), this question could really get to him.
Remember, in all of this we only need two Republican Senators to flinch. If one starts to show signs of wavering, there could be an avalanche.
The official contact information and twitter handles for all 51 of the Republicans in the Senate who've indicated they'll vote to confirm Barrett are at the bottom of the page. But please, only contact your own Senators. Otherwise it blunts the impact.
Senators that went on the record in 2016 opposing confirming a justice in an election year have that stated after their name in italics. Senators who are up for re-election now, and in a very close race, have their names in bold. Note that some of them have been more hypocritical than others about this. Lindsey Graham is among the worst; but it's beyond the scope of this article to show all the ways they each, individually, have completely contradicted themselves.
The ones in tight races really, really need to hear from their constituents; and the ones who have been blatant hypocrites about it really should, too; but the fact is, if you have a Republican Senator, call them and tell them what you think about confirming a justice to the Supreme Court so close to the election. Make it clear to them that we're not going to forget their decision.
ALASKA:
Dan Sullivan (running for re-election now, tight race) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-3004, @SenDanSullivan
www.sullivan.senate.gov/contact/email
ALABAMA:
Richard Shelby (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's nomination
(202) 224-5744, @SenShelby
www.shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailsenatorshelby
ARKANSAS:
Tom Cotton (running for re-election now) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-2353, @TomCottonAR
www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=contact
John Boozman (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-4843, @JohnBoozman
www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
ARIZONA:
Martha McSally (running for re-election now, losing)
(202) 224-2235, @SenMcSallyAZ
www.mcsally.senate.gov/contact_martha
COLORADO:
Cory Gardner (running for re-election now, tight race) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202)-224-5941, @sencorygardner
www.gardner.senate.gov/contact-cory/email-cory
FLORIDA:
Marco Rubio (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-3041, @MarcoRubio
www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
Rick Scott (up for re-election in 2024)
(202) 224-5274, @SenRickScott
www.rickscott.senate.gov/contact_rick
GEORGIA:
David Perdue (running for re-election now, tight race) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-3521, @sendavidperdue
www.perdue.senate.gov/connect/email
Kelly Loeffler (running for re-election now, tight race)
(202) 224-3643, @SenatorLoeffler
www.loeffler.senate.gov/connect/email-kelly
IOWA:
Joni Ernst (running for re-election now, tight race) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-3254, @senjoniernst
www.ernst.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
Chuck Grassley (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202)-224-3744, @ChuckGrassley
www.grassley.senate.gov/contact
IDAHO:
Jim Risch (running for re-election now)
(202) 224-2752, @SenatorRisch
www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email
Mike Crapo (up for re-election in 2022)
(202) 224-6142, @MikeCrapo
www.crapo.senate.gov/contact
INDIANA:
Todd Young (up for re-election in 2022)
(202) 224-5623, @SenToddYoung
www.young.senate.gov/contact
Mike Braun (up for re-election in 2024)
(202) 224-4814, @SenatorBraun
www.braun.senate.gov/contact-mike
KANSAS:
Pat Roberts (not running for re-election, seat open in 2020) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-4774, @SenPatRoberts
https://www.roberts.senate.gov/public/?p=EmailPat
Jerry Moran (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-6521, @JerryMoran
www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry
KENTUCKY:
Mitch McConnell (running for re-election now, somewhat close) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-2541, @SenateMajLdr (be so sweet for that to change)
www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact
Rand Paul (up for re-election in 2022)
(202) 224-4343, @randpaul
www.paul.senate.gov/connect/email-rand
LOUISIANA:
Bill Cassidy (running for re-election now)
(202) 224-5824, @BillCassidy
www.cassidy.senate.gov/contact
John Kennedy (up for re-election in 2022)
(202) 224-4623, @SenJohnKennedy
www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/email-me
MISSOURI:
Roy Blunt (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-5721, @RoyBlunt
www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-roy
Josh Hawley (up for re-election in 2024)
(202) 224-6154, @HawleyMO
www.hawley.senate.gov/contact-senator-hawley
MISSISSIPPI:
Cindy Hyde-Smith (running for re-election now, winning a tight race)
(202) 224-5054, @cindyhydesmith
www.hydesmith.senate.gov/content/contact-senator
Roger Wicker (up for re-election in 2024) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-6253, @SenatorWicker
www.wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
MONTANA:
Steve Daines (running for re-election now, very tight race) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-2651, @SteveDaines
www.daines.senate.gov/connect/email-steve
NORTH CAROLINA:
Thom Tillis (running for re-election now, very tight race) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-6342, @senthomtillis
www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me
Richard Burr (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-3154, @SenatorBurr
www.burr.senate.gov/contact/email
NORTH DAKOTA:
John Hoeven (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-2551, @SenJohnHoeven
www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator
Kevin Cramer (up for re-election in 2024)
(202) 224-2043, @kevincramer
www.cramer.senate.gov/contact_kevin
NEBRASKA:
Ben Sasse (running for re-election now)
(202) 224-4224, @SenSasse
www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-ben
Deb Fischer (up for re-election in 2024) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-6551, @SenatorFischere
www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
OHIO:
Rob Portman (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-3353, @SenRobPortman
www.portman.senate.gov/meet/contact
OKLAHOMA:
Jim Inhofe (running for re-election now) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-4721, @jiminhofe
www.inhofe.senate.gov/contact
James Lankford (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-5754, @SenatorLankford
www.lankford.senate.gov/contact/email
PENNSYLVANIA:
Patrick Toomey (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-4254, @SenToomey
www.toomey.senate.gov/contact/email-senator-toomey
SOUTH CAROLINA:
*Lindsey Graham (running for re-election now, very tight race)* opposed Garland's 2016 nomination, and called on people to use his words against him if he confirmed a justice in an election year
(202) 224-5972, @LindseyGrahamSC
www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-senator-graham
Tim Scott (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-6121, @SenatorTimScott
www.scott.senate.gov/contact/email-me
SOUTH DAKOTA
Mike Rounds (running for re-election now) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-5842, @SenatorRounds
www.rounds.senate.gov/contact/email-mike
John Thune (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-2321, @SenJohnThune
www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
TENNESSEE
Lamar Alexander (not running for re-election, seat vacant in 2020) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-4944, @SenAlexander
www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email
Marsha Blackburn (up for re-election in 2024)
(202) 224-3344, @marshablackburn
www.blackburn.senate.gov/email-me
TEXAS:
John Cornyn (running for re-election now, tight race) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-2934, @JohnCornyn
www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact
Ted Cruz (up for re-election in 2024) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-5922, @tedcruz
www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=form&id=16
UTAH:
Mike Lee (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-5444, @SenMikeLee
www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
Mitt Romney (up for re-election in 2024, if he isn't running for prez...)
(202) 224-5251, @MittRomney
www.romney.senate.gov/contact-senator-romney
WEST VIRGINIA:
Shelley Capito (running for re-election now) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-6472, @SenCapito
www.capito.senate.gov/contact/contact-shelley
WISCONSIN:
Ron Johnson (up for re-election in 2022) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-5323, @SenRonJohnson
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator
WYOMING:
Mike Enzi (not running for re-election, seat open in 2020) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-3424, @SenatorEnzi
https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=e-mail-senator-enzi
John Barrasso (up for re-election in 2024) opposed Garland's 2016 nomination
(202) 224-6441, @SenJohnBarasso
www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form