McConnell to Obama: No hearings, no vote on SCOTUS nominee

I'm not sure this is really news because we kind of knew this anyway, didn't we? There was some question about whether an Obama nominee might be a courtesy hearing, but no way was McConnell going to hold a vote and risk Democrats peeling away the likes of Susan Collins and Mark Kirk and possibly cobbling together 51 votes to confirm the fifth anti-Constitutionalist Justice. Maybe McConnell thought it would help the Republicans manage the matter politically to just make a definitive, final proclamation on the matter. Democrats scream and howl to their media servants, who dutifully report the end of all that is good and decent for a few days, and then . . . hey, it's over. Time to go back to whoever Trump insulted today.

---

That has to be it, right? There's no way McConnell backs down now, right? Er . . .

Chuck Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, predicted that the Republican position would crumble as voters put pressure on vulnerable Republican Senate incumbents seeking re-election to consider Obama's nominee. "It’s not just a risky strategy, it's the wrong strategy and it's going to fail," Schumer said of the Senate Republicans. But Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican Judiciary Committee member, countered, "I’m not concerned about that (public pressure). We’re standing for a principle that the next president ought to resolve this problem."

---

---

The problem with that principle, of course, is that it's no principle at all. That's only in effect here because the current president is Obama and the current vacancy would swing the court majority to the left if confirmed. If Obama were willing to nominate a conservative to replace Scalia - or it has been one of the liberal Justices who had resigned or died - does anyone really think we'd be having all this drama? No. There'd be no reason for it. I wrote the very night Scalia died that the Republicans had to stop any Obama nominee, and not because it's an election year or "the people need to decide" or whatever B.S. they're throwing out there to rationalize their position. It's because everyone knows Obama would choose a terrible nominee, and with control of the court in the balance, that simply can't be allowed. It would be too awful for the country. I'm glad McConnell is finally standing up to Obama once in his life, but I can't for the life of me understand why he and other Republican senators cling to this flimsy rationalization - even if 1992 Joe Biden is helping them to make it - instead of just telling the country the real reason. As with most ideological arguments in this country, I'm convinced the Republicans would win the debate if only they were willing to have it. Whether their reluctance owes to fear of the media or the fact that they don't really believe their own position, I am not sure, but it's infuriating in the extreme. Also: If Hillary is the next president, haven't Senate Republicans basically affirmed any choice she makes by the rationale they're using here? If I had to guess, I'd say Obama goes ahead and nominates someone anyway, but the person who gets nominated will understand they are not going to be on the Supreme Court. Their purpose in accepting the nomination will be to become the object of media and activist sympathy - an instant celebrity who will personify the unwillingness of heartless Republicans to give them a chance. People Magazine will offer cover space. The Today Show and Good Morning America will go bonkers. And Republican senators will be pressured to explain how such a fine human being could be denied the dream of a lifetime while they cavort with Donald Trump. Just because Obama can't win the vote doesn't mean he can't win the political battle. In fact, now that he knows there won't even be a vote, the pressure's off with respect to getting results and he can just make it about the media narrative. Who do you think is better equipped to win that fight? Obama or McConnell? Exactly.

---