Things happened very quickly on Saturday in the hours after the nation learned of Antonin Scalia's death. When I sat down to write up my piece on it, I decided to advocate what seemed to me at least a somewhat radical position - that the Republican-controlled Senate needed to reject any Obama nominee, simply because the left's assault on the Constitution could prove fatal to the nation if we found ourselves with five Supreme Court Justices who view the Constitution with the same disdain Obama does.
I wasn't surprised when Ted Cruz quickly came out with a statement saying the same thing, but I was very surprised when Mitch McConnell did so - and only a couple of hours after Scalia's death became known. We've covered to death here McConnell's disinclination to stand up to Obama on just about anything, but maybe this signaled his recognition that the survival of this nation as a constitutionally limited republic was too important to worry about media criticism in this instance.
I sent a link to Rob that contained McConnell's statement, thinking maybe we could share a moment of hope. Rob's response: "Which will make his inevitable surrender all the more heartbreaking."
Ugh. But given McConnell's track record, how could I argue? Then we started hearing the rationale the Republicans are apparently going to offer for why they won't confirm an Obama appointee: Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year are just not done. We should let the American people pick the next president who can then make the choice. Because it's an election year!
Oh no. Please tell me they're not. Not a process argument. God help the Unted States of America.
If this is what they're going to hang their hats on, it means they're shrinking from the real reason Obama's nominee can't be confirmed. It has nothing to do with it being an election year. It has nothing to do with letting the people have a say. The people have already had a say - in 2012 when they chose Obama, and in 2014 when they chose a Republican Senate. Those choices are in effect until either or both has to stand for another election. That is not the reason you can't confirm an Obama nominee.
Obama's complete disdain for the Constitution
The reason is much simpler than that. It's Obama himself, and his complete disdain for the Constitution. Republican senators have a job to do, which is to protect the best interests of the nation, and that starts with protecting the Constitution. Confirming an Obama appointee would be counter to that duty because it would give a 5-4 majority to people who are willing to completely ignore the Constitution's limits on the power of the federal government whenever Democrats want them to.
It is the duty of the Republican-controlled Senate to prevent that from happening, not because of what year it is, but because the nation will be in big trouble if they don't.
The process argument is an easy one for the left to win. All they have to do is point to the confirmation of Anthony Kennedy in 1988. It's true that it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because Kennedy's confirmation followed a vacancy that actually occurred in July 1987, and stretched out seven months as Democrats refused to confirm Robert Bork and then the nomination of Douglas Ginsburg crashed and burned amidst the revelation that he has smoked marijuana - back when we still considered it a problem to have stoners in positions of authority.
But it doesn't really matter that the comparison isn't exact. If this is your rationale, what happens is that Democrats and Republicans end up in a never-ending, vomit-inducing debate over whether the historical precedent holds, and why or if it should. Democrats will respond that Obama was elected to serve a full term and the constitutional duty to nominate another Justice lies with him - and they'll be right. And the media will help the Democrats hammer that point home and win the argument - making it look like Republicans are just playing politics with the matter.
The much more uncomfortable but absolutely necessary case to make is that Obama is personally unfit to make this decision, and that the price the nation would pay if saddled with a 5-4 liberal majority on the Supreme Court is simply too high. Republicans have to explain to the voters how crucial it is that the judicial branch protect the Constitution, and show examples of what would happen if it were not to do so - and make no mistake, it would not do so if an Obama nominee were to succeed Scalia.
By the way, you conservatives who want to sit out elections and let the Democrats win whenever there is a Republican nominee not to your liking - this is why you can't do that. Whatever your problems may have been with a President Romney, the Constitution would not be hanging in the balance as it is today if he had been elected in 2012.
I'm glad McConnell is showing some resolve here, but if he's not prepared to tell the public the real reason for it, then I fear Rob will be right and his capitulation will be a mere matter of time. And if that happens, I'm really not sure we're going to make it. If it makes you feel any better, I'm not sure we were going to anyway.
Things happened very quickly on Saturday in the hours after the nation learned of Antonin Scalia's death. When I sat down to write up my piece on it, I decided to advocate what seemed to me at least a somewhat radical position - that the Republican-controlled Senate needed to reject any Obama nominee, simply because the left's assault on the Constitution could prove fatal to the nation if we found ourselves with five Supreme Court Justices who view the Constitution with the same disdain Obama does.
I wasn't surprised when Ted Cruz quickly came out with a statement saying the same thing, but I was very surprised when Mitch McConnell did so - and only a couple of hours after Scalia's death became known. We've covered to death here McConnell's disinclination to stand up to Obama on just about anything, but maybe this signaled his recognition that the survival of this nation as a constitutionally limited republic was too important to worry about media criticism in this instance.
