By Elliott Brack, editor and publisher, GwinnettForum | There’s no doubt that the reverberations about President Obama nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court are far from over.
Forgetting your politics, it seems to us that the most penetrating statement that has been made was when President Obama said, “Presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term. Neither should a senator.”
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that during an election year, or any other time, the president should not nominate court justices. In fact, the Constitution says forth rightfully that the president shall nominate justices. Then it follows that this nomination only moves with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.
As we well know, the Senate can reject a nominee. After all, it’s their duty not to dawdle, but to vote on them.
Garland
We need look no farther back that the Robert Bork nomination by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. That year the Senate voted 58-42 against that nomination. That was when there were 54 Democrats controlling the Senate. Note that four Republicans joined in spoiling this nominee. There’s some indication that Senate Republicans are still smarting 29 years later about the rejection of the Bork nomination, and are using the Garland proposal as pay-back. Interestingly, the present Republican majority has 54 votes, with 44 Democrats in the Senate. There are also two independents voting with the Democrats, giving the same 54-46 partisan split as in 1987, only reversed this time.
President Reagan eventually nominated Anthony Kennedy of California to the Supreme Court to replace Powell. Kennedy won his seat on the Court by a bi-partisan 97-0 vote, since he was “widely viewed by conservatives and liberals alike as balanced and fair.” That’s much the same language which is being applied to Merrick Garland based on his performance on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
But remember, this isn’t about Garland. The very day that Justice Antonin Scalia died, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell was vowing that the Senate would not at all consider President Obama’s nominee. This is nothing short of obstruction of the Constitution, these days fully backed by right-wing Republicans and the Tea Party.
The ironic aspect is that with President Obama sending forth a relatively conservative nominee, knowing that the process might be difficult, the nomination of Merrick Garland might be the best the Republicans could hope for. Especially should Democrats prevail in the November election, Republicans may rue the day that they laid down the gauntlet on this nomination.
Already there seem to be more and more cracks in the Republican opposition to Garland. Where the GOP ranks at first seemed rock-solid, now several Republicans have said that they would meet with Garland. At least one Senator, Jerry Moran of Kansas, says the Senate should have hearings on his nomination. While it takes 60 votes for confirmation, a long way off from the present Senate make-up, still you wonder if Senator McConnell can hold his ranks solid.
The average Americans, polls say, wonder why the Senate could not hold hearings on the nomination. That would at least have them doing their duty, even if they rejected his nomination.
Do your duty, Mitch McConnell. Hold hearings, then vote on the Garland nomination, up or down. If not, people are going to question the Republican Party even more, as it fights an uphill battle from a weak position to try to elect a GOP president. McConnell’s Senate may be shooting itself in the foot, and even putting the future of the Republican party in jeopardy.
Follow Us