Editorial boards and pundits across the country are calling out Republicans for their complete disregard of the Constitution in the wake of Justice Scalia’s death. We begin with Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post, who calls the move an “unforced error”:
Saying publicly — and on the same day that Scalia died — that replacing the justice was a non-starter, Senate Republicans sent a clear message to the American voters: We aren’t even going to make a show of playing ball on this one. [...] With McConnell’s statement on Saturday night, the chance for Republicans to “win” on the court nomination becomes remote. Refusing to even take part in the process — even though that process could have easily yielded the GOP’s desired result — hands Obama and Senate Democrats a political cudgel to bash the GOP.
It’s an unforced error by Senate Republicans that will be difficult to mop up. And one that could cost them at the ballot box in November.
The Des Moines Register:
If Senate Republicans truly will be guided by precedent, they should make plans to vote on President Obama’s nominee and not discuss stalling tactics and filibusters, which seems to be the plan that’s now taking shape.
What makes the Republicans' effort all the more galling is that it flies in the face of their oft-professed, unwavering allegiance to the Constitution, a document that says the president “shall nominate,” with the “advice and consent of the Senate,” our Supreme Court justices. It doesn’t say anything at all about these duties and obligations being suspended a year or so before each president is scheduled to leave office.
The GOP effort to block an Obama nominee from the court isn’t about letting voters have their say, or respecting past precedent, or demonstrating strict adherence to the Constitution. In fact, it’s precisely the opposite.
Keith Boykin, former White House aide to President Clinton:
Mitch McConnell's naked power grab, coming on the heels of a government shutdown, more than 60 failed attempts to repeal Obamacare, and numerous other manufactured crises, also helps refute the unsubstantiated media narrative that "both parties are to blame" for the gridlock in Washington. There's no precedent in modern history for denying the duly elected president of the United States a hearing or a vote on a Supreme Court nomination. This level of obstruction exposes the G.O.P.'s pattern of intransigence and could push independents to the Democratic fold in the fall.
It's a move Republicans will live to regret.
Alex Roarty at Roll Call highlights the dilemma for swing-state Republican Senate candidates:
In what might amount to their most high-profile decision of their campaigns, vulnerable Republican incumbents can side either with ideological allies who believe viscerally important issues like abortion-rights, immigration reform, and government overreach are at stake – or with moderates who are more broadly interested in lawmakers who lessen government dysfunction and help get things done.
The pressure is especially intense for a quintet of swing-state Republican incumbents who have a direct say on if and how the Senate considers President Barack Obama’s appointee: Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rob Portman of Ohio. Indeed, for a collection of senators whose biggest headache to date has been one outside of their control – Donald Trump’s improbable success in the GOP presidential primary – the question of how to handle Supreme Court confirmation is at least within their power, but it could be no less challenging.
Amanda Marcotte:
It says a lot about our current political situation that the best outcome for the Democrats is almost surely what the Republicans are threatening to do, which is to stonewall anyone Obama nominates, just because he’s Obama and they have a superstitious belief that everything he touches is unclean. While it’s going to be a policy disaster to have a court that is set up to tie so many important decisions, having the Republicans loudly proclaim that they prioritize impotent insults aimed at the President over actual governance is a political boon of the sort that you can’t buy even with Citizens United money. Every day this drags out, the news will be a glorious reminder to the voters that the Republicans are such babies that they shouldn’t be trusted to run a small town McDonald’s franchise, much less be given so much power in the U.S. government.
This is especially delicious since the only Republican candidate who has a chance to walk away from this unscathed — maybe even finding a way to turn it to his advantage— is Donald Trump. The two candidates who are currently best positioned to unseat Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, are both senators and both have indicated their willingness to join their fellow Republicans in the Senate in blocking whoever Obama nominates, just because he nominated them. The bad loser vibe, where Republicans punish not just Obama but the whole country because they refuse to accept he won the 2012 election fair and square, will rub off on them.
Also, take a moment and look at this chart by Gregor Aisch, JOsh Keller, K.K. Rebecca Lai and Karen Yourish at The New York Times illustrating the fact that Supreme Court nominees in election years are usually confirmed (make sure to click through for the chart):
Since 1900, the Senate has voted on eight Supreme Court nominees during an election year. Six were confirmed. But several of those were for seats that had become vacant in the previous year.
The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.
The Dallas Morning News:
Yes, it’s uncommon for vacancies to occur in an election year. But when they have, no president of either party has sat on his responsibility and refused to nominate a successor. Nor has the Senate ever simply refused to even consider a nomination with so many months to go before the next election. [...]
The far wiser, and only responsible, course is to for Senators to hold their hearings, study Obama’s choice and then all members, liberal or conservative, cast a vote they can defend.
The Washington Post’s James Hohmann:
Assuming the president picks a Hispanic, African American or Asian American – bonus points if she’s a woman – this could be exactly what Democrats need to re-activate the Obama coalition that fueled his victories in 2008 and 2012. Even if he does not go with a minority candidate, the cases on the docket will galvanize voters who are traditionally less likely to turn out. [...]
More broadly, this could also undermine efforts by Senate Republicans to show that they are capable of governing and not just “the party of no.” Make no mistake: The upper chamber will grind to a standstill if the GOP follows through on this threat. Democrats who are inclined to work with them promise to stop doing so if Republicans play hardball.
And, on a final note, Timothy S. Huebner at The New York Times dives into the history of election year nominees:
President Obama has constitutional and historical precedent on his side and should announce a nominee. [...]
In fact, history supports Mr. Obama. On 13 occasions, a vacancy on the nation’s highest court has occurred — through death, retirement or resignation — during a presidential election year. This does not include the most recent and frequently cited example, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan in November 1987 to fill a vacancy and won confirmation from a Democratic-controlled Senate in February 1988. [...]
The Republicans, who frequently cite the Constitution and look to historical precedent, have an opportunity to be true to their principles. They should ignore Donald Trump’s urging to “delay, delay, delay,” and help ensure our Constitution functions as it should — and as it has in the past.