View co-host Joy Behar absurdly claimed Tuesday that Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) is worse than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Behar expressed d...
View co-host Joy Behar absurdly claimed Tuesday that Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) is worse than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Behar expressed dismay that Sasse, like Graham, is voting against Ketanji Brown Jackson nomination to be a judge of the Supreme Court:
The person that bothers me in all of this is people like Ben Sasse, for example, who is a principled senator from Nebraska. You know he stood against [Donald] Asset a couple of times and yet and he talks about Judge Jackson being, you know, blameless, being, you know, the best. And he’s going to vote against her because he wants to keep his job. There is something so pathetic about this kind of position. And it’s almost as if the Ben Sasses of the world are more dangerous than even the Lindsey Grahams.
This rant followed his take on Friday that Sasse is a “hypocrite.”
Sasse, as Behar rightly acknowledged, is a man of principles. Since being sworn into the Senate in 2015, the senator, who doesn’t have to worry about re-election until 2026, has been unafraid to uphold conservative principles and go against his own party, such as opposing Trump in 2016 and criticizing him during his presidency (while Graham went from criticizing Trump to being on the MAGA team in order to save his political career). He was one of seven GOP senators to vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. During Jackson’s nomination hearings, Sasse called what he called the “jackasseryon both sides of the aisle when it comes to members of Congress showboating for the cameras during committee hearings.
At Sasse opposition to Jackson stems from ideology, which is a valid argument:
Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American history. We both love this country, but we disagree on the judicial philosophy and unfortunately I cannot vote for this confirmation.
Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a thorough knowledge of the law, but at every turn this week, she not only refused to claim originality as a judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy. Although she explained originalism and textualism to the committee in detail, Judge Jackson declined to adopt them or any other specific system of judicial docket limits.
Meanwhile, Graham, despite voting to be a DC Court of Appeals judge last year, has come out against his nomination to the highest court in the land (Sasse did not participate in the 2021 vote). Talk about a flip-flop in the name of conveniently not wanting to get on the wrong side of Trump and the right. Tribalism is, in Behar’s words, “more dangerous” than standing on principle.
If Behar said she disagreed with Sasse’s belief in originality, then it would be fair game. But to criticize the nuance, which Sasse displayed in his opposition to Jackson, and to suggest that it is worse than doing what is politically convenient, as Graham did, is outrageous and deserves ridicule. Behar should take some time to appreciate the view Sasse has.
Watch above, via ABC.
This is an opinion piece. The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author.
COMMENTS