SCOTUS nominations have become political? Only since Bork.

[Bricker]

@UltraVires

Of course not. If Obama nominated Judge Michael Luttig, J. Michael Luttig - Wikipedia then the Senate would happily confirm. But he wants a left leaning moderate which is not what the Senate wants. Both sides are unwilling to budge, so why is the Senate the child in this scenario? It could just as easily be the President.

But I reject the idea that either side is acting like a child. As much as Obama wants to push the Court further left, the Senate wants it to remain where it is and have another Scalia in his place. When the Court injects itself into political debate, this is to be expected, and not the fault of the politicians who want their own candidate in that office. The left did it with Bork, and we are doing it with Garland. Nothing new under the sun.

Well, yes.

Except that despite my personal preferences, I do believe Obama is in the right (ha!) here, and the Senate acting wrongly.

Elections have consequences. Wisely or not, we elected Obama as the President. He gets to pick the justives. The Senate should not have rejected Bork, and should not be rejecting Garland. Both were qualified. I don’t agree there’s a huge distinction between failing to vote, and voting down – primarily political cowardice in the present situation stemming from a worry that the vote will suceed and a worry that a negative vote will be campaign fodder for the next opponent each such senator faces. But ultimately, both side do it, and both times it’s wrong. I say this now, and I’ll say it when a GOP president is blocked. But the difference is that when I say it then, I’ll be accused of being a mindless partisan. The motives that animated THIS post will be forgotten, or simply “forgotten.”