It wasn’t a major focus of the April 14 feisty debate between Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
The Associated Press’ coverage of the clash in Brooklyn, N.Y., in fact, made no mention of the candidates’ responses to the question.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate, though, hopefully were listening when Clinton and Sanders were asked what they would do if they win in November and the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy is still unfilled.
Clinton was noncommittal whether she would stick with President Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland. Sanders said he would not because Garland doesn’t pass Sanders’ litmus test — pledging to reverse the court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that has been blamed for opening up the floodgates to special-interest spending on elections.
The Republican majority in the Senate has so far refused to give Garland’s nomination a hearing until at least after the November election. It’s hoping that a Republican will win the presidency, opening the way for a more conservative Supreme Court choice than Garland, who is considered a judicial moderate.
The problem with that strategy — besides the failure to perform a constitutional responsibility and the unfairness of leaving Garland hanging in limbo — is that it could backfire and result in someone further to the left than Garland filling the vacancy.
Philosophically, Republicans are not that opposed to Garland. When he was approved for a federal appeals court seat 20 years ago and even more recently, GOP senators have praised the former federal prosecutor. Their only real objection to Garland is that he was nominated by Obama. In a party that has become obsessed with opposing anything associated with the sitting Democratic president, even good ideas get shot down.
The GOP’s fallback position, if the party loses the presidential contest, is to try to rush Garland’s nomination through in a lame duck session. By then, however, Obama might get pressure from the president-elect or the liberal wing of his party to withdraw Garland’s name so that a more leftward nominee can be submitted instead.
It is a bad gamble the Republicans are taking. They should reconsider.
