Mitt Romney’s big move

| 3:00 pm EDT April 7, 2022
Dear Palmer Report readers, we all understand the difficult era we're heading into. Major media outlets are caving to Trump already. Even the internet itself and publishing platforms may be at risk. But Palmer Report is nonetheless going to lead the fight. We're funding our 2025 operating expenses now, so we can keep publishing no matter what happens. I'm asking you to contribute if you can, because the stakes are just so high. You can donate here.

The Washington Post called Mitt Romney’s confirmation vote for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson “historical.” They give two important reasons for that classification. First, Romney voted against Judge Jackson for the Court of Appeals and second, Judge Jackson will receive three Republican votes just as she did in her confirmation for the Court of Appeals. WaPo revealed that this has occurred only once in a half-century and that even then, it was under unusual circumstances that a nominee was able to secure the same number of crossover votes. WaPo further compared this to other justices who were initially confirmed to lower courts and nominated to the Supreme Court. It is typical for them to lose the crossover votes they received for their lower court nominations. Amy Coney Barrett, for example, received three Democratic votes when she was nominated to an appeals court, but when Trump nominated her for the Supreme Court, she received no Democratic votes. They further point to Brett Kavanaugh, who received four Democrats votes and decreased to one, and Sonia Sotomayor who had 25 Republican votes for the appeals court but only 9 for the Supreme Court. It is interesting to say the least.

Even more interesting is the fact that Justice Stephen Breyer, who Judge Jackson will be replacing, received more crossover votes for the Supreme Court than he did for the appeals court. Breyer also comes up when discussing the fact that Romney made another historic vote by voting against Judge Jackson for the appeals court and turning around and voting in favor of her for the Supreme Court. Who knows what really makes a senator vote one way or another? In the case of Romney, WaPo discovered that Romney was “heavily courted” by religious-freedom activists who viewed Judge Jackson’s record positively, and he did not like the way in which Judge Jackson was questioned by his fellow Republicans. According to the Hill, all three Republicans were unhappy with the way in which the process has been going in recent years.

Collins wants to “lower the partisan temperature” in the process, and she would like to see groups that pressure senators out of the process, though that will be difficult to accomplish. She reiterated that the role of the senate is to give “considerable deference” to a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court regardless of that president’s party affiliation. She gave as examples Antonin Scalia, who was nominated by President Regan and was confirmed 98-0, and President Clinton’s nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was confirmed 96-3. Collins (truthfully) said that this allowed the court to stay out of political frays. Romney shared that after he met with Judge Jackson and reviewed her qualifications, he decided that she should be on the court. Romney also agreed with Collins’ take on the process, as did Lisa Murkowski. Their votes are also a slap in the face to Mitch McConnell, who the Hill reported was trying his best to get all Republicans to vote against Judge Jackson. McConnell is useless, but that’s nothing new.