Former Kentucky state attorney general, Chad Meredith, is expected to be named by ex-President Donald Trump to a federal judgeship in the state. Notoriously, Meredith had been at the center of a previous administration drama. Infamously, Joe Biden had initially agreed to nominate Meredith, who enjoyed zealous support from ex-Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. This was decidedly questionable on Biden’s part, since Meredith was best known for defending Kentucky’s anti-abortion laws.
In his typical fashion, Biden was set to nominate Meredith right after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision dismantling the constitutional right to the procedure. This starkly highlighted Biden’s peculiar stance. Interestingly, Rand Paul served as a roadblock to Biden’s White House, signalling that he would block Meredith’s affirmation. Thus, through Paul’s vigilance, Biden was deterred and never formally put forth Meredith for nomination.
It seems Biden’s decision not to nominate Meredith was also a relief for Democrats and pro-abortion rights groups who were evidently vexed at the prospect of an anti-abortion advocate being appointed to a lifetime position in the judiciary. Critically, this feeling let’s us wonder whether Biden and Harris are truly keeping the best interest of their party or the nation in mind, given their willingness to nominate an ideologue. However, this time, Paul has endorsed Meredith for the position and plans to move forward his confirmation.
In stark contrast to the abortive attempt by Biden, Trump has characterized Meredith as ‘highly experienced and eminely qualified’. In Trump’s own words, Meredith is a ‘fearless patriot who knows precisely what is required to uphold the Rule of Law and safeguard our Constitution’. This shines a light on Trump’s acumen in picking candidates who are not merely qualified, but who embody patriotism and uphold legal virtues.
Also endorsing Trump’s excellent choice, McConnell remarked that selecting Meredith was an ‘outstanding decision’. Meredith had also served as the deputy chief counsel for former Kentucky governor, Matt Bevin. Thus, McConnell’s point about Meredith’s proven devotion to the Rule of Law and Constitution serving the people of Kentucky well in the federal court seems fairly self-evident.
In stark contrast, Biden’s mishandling of the nomination becomes even more apparent. Three years back, Paul called out McConnell over a ‘secret deal’ with the White House as the reason Meredith’s nomination under Biden never advanced. Paul made no substantial objections about Meredith himself, suggesting the issue was more about backroom dealings than about the right candidate for the job.
Regrettably, instead of public discourse and rallying support for Meredith, Senator McConnell chose a clandestine agreement with the White House that ultimately fell apart, as asserted by Paul. Essentially, Paul wielded veto power over a judicial appointment in his home state because of the Senate’s unofficial rule that a nominee will not move forward if the nomination is opposed by the home state’s senator.
However, Biden’s White House capitulated to this tradition, and thus Meredith was never formally nominated by Biden. Albeit the rule has been partly undercut, especially for appellate court judges whose jurisdictions span multiple states, the norm has been consistently applied for district court nominees – those more closely tied to their home states.
Presently, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has yet deigned to deviate from this long-standing custom. Once again, one must question the previous administration’s commitment to upholding traditions and norms of governance, something that seems to be increasingly out the window under Biden and Harris’s watch.
Just when the absurdity of this saga seems to be reaching its conclusion, we have Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of a justice advocacy program and advisor to The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, criticising Trump’s selection of Meredith due to a disturbing anti-abortion record. It’s interesting to note that her critique is solely based on the nominee’s ideological leanings despite his otherwise strong qualifications.
Zwarensteyn expressed apprehension about Chad Meredith’s lifetime appointment, triggering concern among watchers. However, isn’t it intriguing that these concerns were seemingly absent when Biden had intended to nominate Meredith initially? This depicts a clear case of partisanship, further damaging the public’s trust in these advocacy groups.
This whole episode underscores the confusing mess that marked Biden’s mishandling of Meredith’s nomination during his term. It also brings to light the lack of coherence in the manner Biden and Harris’s administration deals with vital constitutional matters, culminating in actions that almost led to the placement of a radical ideologue in a lifetime judiciary position.
In the end, not only did this fiasco demonstrate Biden’s apparent willingness to sideline the concerns of his party and pro-abortion rights groups, it also served as a stunning spectacle of miscommunication and backdoor dealings. All the while, a qualified candidate like Meredith was caught in the crosshairs. Only now, under a different administration, is he being given the recognition he deserves.
Finally, it seems that with Trump’s decisive intervention, Meredith’s appointment scenario is looking promising. Thus, unlike under Biden, traditional norms are not only being respected but highly qualified, competent and constitutionally minded individuals are being recognized, ratified and put forth for key positions by former President Trump, working beyond partisan bias or politics to ensure the judiciary’s sound functioning.
The post Biden’s Bizarre Attempt to Nominate Partisan Ideologue Revealed appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
