Joy Behar Absurdly Claims ‘Ben Sasses of the World Are More Dangerous Than Even the Lindsey Grahams’
The View co-host Joy Behar absurdly claimed on Tuesday that Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) is worse than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Behar expressed dismay that Sasse, like Graham, will vote against Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to be a Supreme Court justice:
The person who bothers me in all this is the people like Ben Sasse, for instance, who is a Nebraska senator who is a principled person. You know, he stood up against [Donald] Trump a couple of times and yet and he talks about Judge Jackson as, you know, being above reproach, being, you know, the best. And he’s going to vote against her because he wants to keep his job. There’s something so pathetic about that type of stance. And it’s almost like the Ben Sasses of the world are more dangerous than even the Lindsey Grahams.
This rant followed up her take on Friday that Sasse is a “hypocrite.”
Sasse, as Behar rightly acknowledged, is a principled man. Since being sworn into the Senate in 2015, the senator, who does not have to worry about re-election until 2026, has been unafraid to stand up for conservative principles and go against his own party such as opposing Trump in 2016 and criticizing him during his presidency (whereas Graham went from criticizing Trump to being on Team MAGA in order to save his political career). He was one of the seven GOP senators to vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol. During the nomination hearings for Jackson, Sasse called out what he called the “jackassery” on both sides of the aisle when it comes to members of Congress showboating for the cameras during committee hearings.
Sasse’s opposition to Jackson stems from ideology, which is a valid argument:
Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country, but we disagree on judicial philosophy and I am sadly unable to vote for this confirmation.
Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law, but at every turn this week she not only refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy, she refused to claim any judicial philosophy at all. Although she explained originalism and textualism in some detail to the committee, Judge Jackson refused to embrace them or any other precise system of limits on the judicial role.
Meanwhile, Graham, despite voting for her to be a judge on the DC Court of Appeals last year, has come out against her nomination to the nation’s highest court (Sasse did not take part in the 2021 vote). Talk about a flip flop in the name of conveniently not wanting to get on the bad side of Trump and the Right. Tribalism is, to use Behar’ words, “more dangerous” than standing on principle.
Were Behar to have said that she disagrees with Sasse’s belief in originalism, then that would be fair game. But to criticize nuance, which Sasse has displayed in his opposition to Jackson, and suggest that is worse than doing what is politically convenient, as Graham has done, is outrageous and merits ridicule. Behar should take some time to appreciate the view Sasse has.
Watch above, via ABC.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
