As a trial lawyer, my world operates on the adversarial system. In other words, my job is to clobber my opponent. I have a duty – yes an ethical duty – to “zealously” advocate for my clients’ interest. Zealously, with ardent passion and enthusiasm and all the skills I can muster. But that duty must be exercised within the rules governing my profession. For example, I have a duty of candor to the court that trumps my role as an advocate. Put simply, even if it is inconsistent with my client’s interest, I must always be honest with the Court. Similarly, I am required to act professionally and with civility toward my opponent. So when the bell rings, no low blows or dirty tricks, and when the round is over it is over.
Seems to me politics is similar (or it ought to be). Democrats clobber Republicans and Republicans in turn clobber Democrats. They are adversaries. Okay, I get it. It has worked that way for over 200 years. It may not be perfect, but it’s the best we got. But like my legal duties, there must be some limitations to the “clobbering” among the parties. Most importantly, the losing party in an election must allow the winning power to govern. They must respect and follow the system. Yes, you have to stand when the President enters your chamber to present his State of the Union address.
Importantly and here is my point (finally): If the winning party seeks to have a nominee confirmed, the losing party can’t just say no. Their review should be limited to a searching and complete review of a nominee’s credentials. But the confirmation process cannot be a partisan free-for-all – where the goal is to amend or overturn legislation – which disrespects the will of the people and effectively overturns the election results. The winning party is entitled to govern.
That leads us to the case of Mr. Cordray. In every way, he is qualified to head the CFPB. Former law clerk for Supreme Court Justices White and Kennedy; former Attorney General for the state of Ohio; heck, he even won Jeopardy five times. Indeed, Republicans do not disagree about his background. But they have stated they will vote against any nominee unless the Dodd-Frank legislation is rewritten. In essence, they are holding his confirmation ransom. That is just not the way it is supposed to work.
A party wins the election and they must be allowed to govern. If they fail to do so, vote them out of office in two years or four years, but allow them to fulfill the mandate of the electorate.
As President Obama recently said:
Does anyone here think the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?
We need to give Dodd-Frank and Richard Cordray a chance to govern.