Playing games with court picks has gotten out of hand
Published March 17, 2016
Editorial by Rocky Mount Telegram, March 17, 2016.
Though neither side will ever admit to this, Democrats and Republicans are both playing a big game with the U.S. Supreme Court’s vacant seat. We’re just not sure which game.
If it’s poker, President Barack Obama just called the GOP’s bluff.
By most accounts, Obama nominated an uncontroversial, highly qualified 63-year-old federal judge to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the High Court. Uberconservative U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., went so far as to say, “I don’t dislike him,” when asked about his feelings toward Obama’s pick Merrick Garland, the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Still, Inhofe says there’s no chance Garland gets a confirmation hearing.
Maybe the Senate prefers playing Russian roulette. They can bite the bullet now and back down on their pledge to not do their jobs, holding hearings and voting on whether to accept a moderate appointment. Or they can stick to their guns and wait until the election dust has settled and stare down a pick that might be coming from Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Either one could very well pick a justice the GOP might like even less than anyone Obama picks.
Though analysts are calling the pick “uncontroversial,” it’s also firmly being categorized as “unpopular” among his base.
We have a saying in the newsroom that if both political parties are giving you grief, then you’re probably doing something right. Perhaps all the bluster from folks on the left and the right is a real clear sign Obama has a winning hand on this one.
We’ve got a fun game the Senate can play: It’s called Simon says, “Do your jobs!”
