Republican U.S. Senate members were ready with a well-rehearsed rationale for obstruction last week as soon as President Obama announced his highly qualified nominee to the Supreme Court, Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia.
“It’s not about the man,” came their common refrain. “It’s about the principle.”
Actually, it’s not principle; it’s raw, partisan politics. Quite simply, they don’t want Obama involved in replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the high court, even though the president’s term runs almost another year. GOP leaders would prefer to stall and let a possible President Donald Trump make that choice.
There is another principle at play here — the principle of doing the job you were elected to do. And part of that job is to fulfill the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on presidential nominations. That doesn’t mean members have to approve nominations, but it does argue for them at the very least to vet and vote on them.
However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has repeatedly asserted that the Senate won’t even consider Garland’s nomination. Such behavior isn’t just neglecting a responsibility, it’s disrespectful to a highly qualified jurist, a former federal prosecutor who has earned praise from both sides of the aisle.
In justifying his decision not to meet the nominee, McConnell has said the process should wait until a new president is elected. “Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy,” he has argued.
Earth to McConnell: The American people have had a loud voice in this nomination. They have twice elected Obama — by comfortable margins. They’ve also elected senators, including Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio of Florida, to consider it.
McConnell and his allies have fallen back on what they call “the Biden rule,” a 1992 statement from then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden that Supreme Court nominations shouldn’t be considered during election years. That turned out to be only a hypothetical position. Regardless, it was as wrong then as McConnell is now.
Garland was confirmed for his current position with bipartisan support, including the votes of seven current Republican senators. But in the toxic nature of politics today, Republicans have set up a task force to orchestrate attack ads and petitions. Democrats plan counterattacks in swing states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Republican senators on this year’s ballot could face political blowback for opposing hearings.
Would Garland tilt the ideological balance of the current court to the left? Quite possibly. But it’s worth keeping in mind that in the court’s liberal bloc, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83 and Justice Stephen Breyer is 77. The notion from McConnell and other Republicans that Garland, who is 63, would singlehandedly reshape the court for a generation is a stretch.
Regardless, we have long believed presidents have a prerogative earned through their election to choose qualified nominees who align with their principles and priorities. It’s why we supported George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Right now, the court faces a docket of divisive cases on immigration, affirmative action, unions, health care and abortion. America needs some resolution on these issues, not the chance they will have to be reargued when the bench is finally full.
Garland deserves a fair hearing, and an up-or-down vote. Americans do, too.
