Davis Merritt: Moran first wants a fair trial, then the hanging

“We’ll give him a fair trial before we hang him,” goes the (sometimes) satirical line in many bad Western movies. And that’s pretty much what a straight-faced Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said last week about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Whether naively or cynically, Moran attempted to go his own way in a Republican lockstep culture that allows only one way. Whatever his motivation, Moran flubbed the sham attempt at moderation and, within hours, was paying the price in scorn and condemnation from his fellow conservatives.

Rarely has the vehemence and menace of the nation’s increasingly belligerent far right focused so rapidly on one of its own. It’s another sad demonstration of why government gridlock continues. It’s also a clear bit of counterproductive activity by Republican leaders whose party is being torn apart by Americans made impotent by the gridlock and sufficiently angry about it to vote for a Donald Trump.

When a politician places even one toe outside of the narrow ideological path described by the most extreme wing of the GOP, the toe gets stomped on or lopped off.

Moran’s apparently unforgivable political sin was telling town hall audiences in western Kansas early last week that he thinks it is his constitutional duty as a senator to hold hearings on Garland’s nomination despite the GOP Senate leadership’s flat refusal to even meet with Garland privately.

By Friday, facing threats of a primary challenge by an organization calling itself Tea Party Patriots and other condemnations from within the party, Moran had morphed into full Hollywood Old West judge mode with this statement:

“As I have said since the vacancy was created, I believe I have a duty to ask tough questions and demand answers.” (The fair trial.)

But then:

“I am certain a thorough investigation would expose Judge Garland’s record and judicial philosophy, and disqualify him in the eyes of Kansans and Americans.” (The hanging.)

If the latter part was correct (which it isn’t), why wouldn’t GOP senators be happy to have it both ways: give Garland a cursory hearing to seem to fulfill their duty, then vote him down, fulfilling their true aim of preserving their narrow, sometimes soft majority on the court.

They can’t risk that because – having the same access as everybody else in America – they know Garland’s very mainstream legal record, are aware that both Republicans and Democrats are on record praising him highly when they unanimously affirmed him for lower judicial positions, and that his personal record is pristine.

Which means they realize that Garland would demonstrate all of those positive traits with the nation watching and listening live and then wondering why a judge with his character and history couldn’t pass the far right’s ideological litmus tests.

All the maneuvering is done hoping that a Republican will win the presidency in November and nominate an Antonin Scalia-style zealot to re-cement the court’s conservative majority.

In recent decades, such ideological zeal has consistently led them into deep waters, such as the politically expensive impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Iraq War tragedy and multiple shutdowns of the government.

The petulant holdup of Garland’s nomination has equal backfire potential, with Moran already recorded as the first victim.

This story was originally published March 28, 2016 at 7:02 PM with the headline "Davis Merritt: Moran first wants a fair trial, then the hanging."