No, no, no, maybe
Published March 19, 2016
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, March 19, 2016.
Senate Republicans can’t even get their stories straight about blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
They say a lame-duck president shouldn’t be allowed to fill a vacancy on the court during his final year in office. Then some of them hint they might hold their own lame-duck session to confirm Merrick Garland if Hillary Clinton is elected the next president.
“We’re waiting to hear the people’s voice in November, and then we’ll discuss in November where we go from there,” Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said Thursday, according to Politico.
Tillis’ statement describes a situational principle. It indicates that Republicans will adapt their strategy depending on the election outcome.
Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, is as good a selection as Republicans could hope to get from any Democratic president. He is a well-qualified, well-liked, mainstream jurist who also happens to be 63 years old. He would not “reshape the court for decades,” as Republicans have warned about an Obama appointment.
If Clinton becomes the next president, she might nominate a younger and more liberal person for the court. Is that what Senate Republicans are waiting for?
“The irony would be if Secretary Clinton wins and this nominee, who is considered a centrist, is not considered and we end up with a nominee who is far more liberal,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Wednesday.
November gives Republicans plenty of worries. If Donald Trump is their presidential candidate, losses could extend to Senate races. Democrats could regain a majority. Then the idea of holding a lame-duck session in November or December to confirm Garland becomes realistic — even if it directly contradicts the idea of letting the voters decide.
“If the election doesn’t go the way Republicans want it, there will be a lot of people open to that, I am sure,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
It’s not far-fetched. Recent polls in North Carolina and other battleground states consistently show that most voters want the Senate to consider a Supreme Court nominee this year. Republicans like Tillis and Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina are defying public opinion for the sake of partisan obstructionism. Burr is running for re-election, and voters could punish him for his stubborn stance.
There is no precedent for the Republican position and no logic behind it. The next president will fill court vacancies that occur during his or her term; the current president doesn’t pass that responsibility to his successor.
The Senate should work the same way and do its job now. Yet, Republicans say the next Senate should carry out the constitutional duty of advise and consent — unless they decide to act as lame ducks after the election. What hypocrisy.
And we can add rudeness to the equation. Many Republicans even refuse to grant Garland, one of our country’s most respected judges, the courtesy of a meeting to talk about his qualifications and philosophy. GOP senators may not be happy that Trump could win the presidential nomination, but they apparently want to mimic his manners.
Maybe it’s not surprising they won’t sit down with Garland. They sure can’t give him a straight story to explain why he doesn’t even deserve a hearing.
