The fight for the Court

Senate Republicans promise to oppose Obama’s Supreme Court nomination

“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” -Mark Twain

In regard to recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away Feb. 13, Mark Twain might have had a point; however, the Senate is in quite a different state of preparation, or lack thereof, and faces a tricky decision in opposition to President Barack Obama.

The Supreme Court members have a career with a unique level of job security – a lifelong appointment – which they attained through a timely vacancy in the court, a presidential nomination, and the approval of the Senate.

The issue is that Obama has already said he will nominate a justice for the position, but Senate Republicans have adamantly stated they will oppose any of his nominations because his term is too close to being over, preferring to wait until the new president makes a nomination.

Like greedy relatives at the funeral of somebody’s rich great-aunt, Republicans and Democrats quickly turned to arguing and debating the constitutionality of a judicial appointment by Obama, who has less than a year left in office.

“If, in fact, the Republicans in the Senate take a posture that defies the Constitution, defies logic, is not supported by tradition simply because of politics, then invariably what you are going to see is a further deterioration in the ability of any president to make any judicial appointments,” Obama said.

Obama also listed a series of slightly generic qualities that he is looking for in a new member of the Court on the SCOTUSblog website.

“A sterling record,” Obama said. “A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court, and as senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.”

However, it is important to note the hint of hypocrisy in the president’s request, since in 2007, when Obama was still a senator, he was an early supporter of the filibuster against President George W. Bush’s nomination of Justice Samuel Alito. Bush’s nomination occurred midway through the third year of his final term in office, which is technically earlier than Obama’s nomination would be taking place.

“Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

McConnell also cited a 1992 speech by Vice President Joe Biden in which then-Sen. Biden said, “Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”

The Democratic administration cannot seem to make up its minds on this issue, but what do the American people think?

According to the Pew Research Center, 57 percent of Americans say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Obama’s choice to fill the vacancy. About 38 percent say the Senate should not hold hearings until the next president selects a court nominee. Most of those who want the Senate to hold off consideration of a Supreme Court nominee say they would not change their minds about this, regardless of whom Obama selects to replace Scalia.

“We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said.

It would serve young Americans well to appreciate the constitutionality and boldness of Republican senators as they honor 2016 voters and patiently wait to review a nomination from the next president.

Rozenblum is an opinion writer.