On Tuesday's Tavis Smiley show on PBS, as New York magazine's Andrew Sullivan appeared as a guest to discuss current political events, host Smiley at one point fretted that -- because Republicans denied President Barack Obama the chance to appoint Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court -- they were "trampling" on the Constitution, and oddly asked if they might ignore other parts of the Constitution like the abolition of slavery or the right for women to vote.
Suggesting that Republicans violated the Constitution in blocking Judge Garland, Smiley whined:
It was, to be sure, a violation of democratic norms, but it was more than that. To me, it was a trampling on the Constitution by the Republican party who did not give Mr. Garland a hearing. They can vote him up or they can vote him down, Barack Obama didn't do it because he had nothing to do.
He added:
He was obligated to put forth that nomination, and they were obligated to take it up, I believe, and vote up or down. So it wasn't just a violation or an abrogation of norms, it was a trampling on one of our most precious documents.
After Sullivan argued that the Constitution does not mandate that the Senate vote on a judicial nominee, Smiley continued to worry:
But what happens next? We end up reconsidering, you know, people being slaves again? We end up reconsidering the right for women to vote? We could, I mean, my point is, you can parse that thing 18 different ways. So if we're going to -- if the conversation is going to be, "well, they didn't violate the letter of the Constitution, but" -- you take my point? I just don't know where we end up if that's how we start playing the game.
Even though Sullivan supported both John Kerry and Barack Obama for President, he described himself as a "pretty mainstream, right-of-center person," and then complained that Republicans are behaving as if they do not believe Democrats are legitimate for participating in government:
I think the way the Republican party has behaved as if the other party has no legitimacy, as if they can never -- as if they don't want a system in which they share power, you know. And I think that's crucial. We don't want to control everything. We believe in the system -- we don't believe in ourselves. So it's good for there to be another party to come in and correct the errors and do this kind of thing, as opposed to complete intransigence, obstructionism, and pursuit of one-party rule.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, March 21, Tavis Smiley Show on PBS:
TAVIS SMILEY: It was, to be sure, a violation of democratic norms, but it was more than that. To me, it was a trampling on the Constitution by the Republican party who did not give Mr. Garland a hearing. They can vote him up or they can vote him down, Barack Obama didn't do it because he had nothing to do. He was obligated to put forth that nomination, and they were obligated to take it up, I believe, and vote up or down. So it wasn't just a violation or an abrogation of norms, it was a trampling on one of our most precious documents.
ANDREW SULLIVAN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Well, I think if you were to parse the document, it doesn't say they must.
SMILEY: Sure.
SULLIVAN: It says he may nominate, and you don't have to have nine people on the court.
SMILEY: That's true.
SULLIVAN: So I don't think they violated the letter of the Constitution, but they violated the spirit. And the spirit matters because that's what gives it life. And if it's just a dead letter, it's just a dead letter. And I find that incredibly depressing, and I have to say that the violation was really, to my mind, disrespect to the President of the United States, contempt for the President of the United States, which they had for eight years.
SMILEY: No doubt about that. I raised this issue, you know, a year ago when this happened, and some people got it and some people maligned me for it. But what happens next? We end up reconsidering, you know, people being slaves again? We end up reconsidering the right for women to vote? We could, I mean, my point is, you can parse that thing 18 different ways. So if we're going to -- if the conversation is going to be, "well, they didn't violate the letter of the Constitution, but" -- you take my point?
SULLIVAN: I do.
SMILEY: I just don't know where we end up if that's how we start playing the game.
SULLIVAN: You can't, but they're not violating a law or enacting a law that could violate the Constitution, and I think that's a big distinction.
SMILEY: Okay.
SULLIVAN: But I do think the Constitution will not work like a machine will not work, unless it's greased with trust. And I think what's happened in this country, tragically, is that polarization has led to complete lack of trust, on both sides. However, I believe, like Norm Ornstein -- and I don't think I'm a crazy outlier for this -- I'm not a super liberal. I consider myself a pretty mainstream, right-of-center person.
I think the way the Republican party has behaved as if the other party has no legitimacy, as if they can never -- as if they don't want a system in which they share power, you know. And I think that's crucial. We don't want to control everything. We believe in the system -- we don't believe in ourselves. So it's good for there to be another party to come in and correct the errors and do this kind of thing, as opposed to complete intransigence, obstructionism, and pursuit of one-party rule.
