Dear GOP: Stop playing politics and give Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing
|
Version 0 of 1. AS PRESIDENT Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the country’s second-most powerful court, to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Republican leaders immediately accused the White House of playing politics. In fact, it is Republicans who are putting politics above their essential responsibilities. Mr. Garland should get confirmation hearings, and after those a straight up-or-down vote. Any political damage Republicans endure for refusing will be self-inflicted and well-deserved. The case against Mr. Garland — well, there is not much of a case against him. He is unusually well-respected across the ideological spectrum. He worked his way up in the Justice Department as a prosecutor, gaining respect for supervising terrorism cases, before joining the federal bench. He was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 76 to 23 in 1997, and several sitting senators should remember voting for him. One, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), was once quoted as calling him a “consensus nominee.” During his time on the D.C. Circuit, Mr. Garland has gained a reputation for thoughtfulness. He is an ideal nominee in these divided times. All this is beside the point, GOP leaders argue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that Republicans’ refusal to consider Mr. Garland is “about a principle, not a person,” explaining that “the American people should have a say in the court’s direction.” But they did have a say — when they elected Mr. Obama to a second four-year term. Mr. McConnell and his Senate colleagues serve six years at a time, which, incidentally, means they are arguably more lacking in democratic legitimacy in the final years of their terms than any other elected federal officeholders. One could draw all sorts of arbitrary lines circumscribing what presidents or senators should be able to do in the run-up to an election. Each one would increase gridlock and further inhibit the government’s proper functioning. Elections are supposed to provide regular and orderly guidance to government, not shut it down for months at a time. The only workable principle is that politicians be allowed — indeed, expected — to do their jobs for as long as the country has hired them. Mr. McConnell falls back on the argument that, as a senator from Delaware, Joe Biden (D) argued in 1992 that the president should not tap Supreme Court nominees “once the political season is underway.” Indeed, it is almost certainly true that, if roles were reversed, Democrats would use the same strategy Mr. McConnell is pursuing. But Mr. Biden being wrong in the past does not change the fact that Mr. McConnell is wrong now. The debate about Mr. Garland’s nomination should not be about the unremarkable fact of political hypocrisy. It should be about Mr. Garland and his qualifications. It may be true that Mr. Obama chose Mr. Garland with politics in mind, forcing Republicans to reject a supremely well-qualified judge. Yet Mr. Obama could have chosen to nominate a more ideological figure or a minority candidate with an eye to turning out voters. Instead, the president selected someone whose primary political advantage is that he is eminently reasonable, which is what a Democratic president would do if he were reaching out in good faith to a GOP Senate. Republicans should respond with the same good sense. Read more: Jonathan H. Adler: Initial thoughts on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Paul Waldman: Why Republicans might actually put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court Jonathan Capehart: Mitch McConnell’s stance on Merrick Garland is maddeningly brilliant. And desperate. Ed Rogers: The nomination of Merrick Garland is a futile charade Alexandra Petri: Obama: Merrick Garland is a beautiful cinnamon roll, too good for this world, too pure |