I am in favor of proceeding with a hearing and for Merrick Garland. And here is why.
Only constitutional reason for the delay. Constitution does not specify how many justices the Supreme Court should have. It does not even specify that there should be an odd number. Otherwise, there is no other constitutional reason for the Senate not to move forward.
Negatives for the GOP.
1. With an even number of justices, a tied court means that the decision of the lower court will stand. Does the GOP really want to take that risk?
2. It makes the GOP look like a party of partisan obstructionists and putting party interests ahead of the overall needs of the country. Of course, the Republicans have, for the last eight years, looked like a party of partisan obstructionists who put party ahead of the overall needs of the country.
3. Obama could nominate someone even more liberal to the court as a recess appointment. Merrick Garland, on many issues, is a moderate.
4. It could costs the party critical votes in the upcoming election. There are 7 senate seats that are considered "toss-up" seats in the upcoming election. Six of them are held by Republicans. If all six are won by Democrats, they are back in the majority in the Senate. In the House, the Democrats are likely to gain at least 8 seats. 17 others are considered toss-up elections. 3 of those 17 are currently held by Democrats. The GOP could lose 22 seats of their 30 seat majority. Some Tea Party people might look at this as caving, but election years are not years to play hardball. Of course, most people are focused on the Presidential Election, but that also means that more people will be coming out to vote.
5. The Democrats will return the favor someday. There will be another day when there is a Republican president and Democrats are in charge of the Senate. The Dems are sure to do the same thing at that time. Sure, they threatened to not proceed with the nomination of Alito back in 2007, but they eventually did go forward and confirm the nomination of Samuel Alito. The question is, do you really want this to be the precedent going forward? I doubt you really do, as it has not been the precedent so far.
Positives for the GOP in moving forward.
1. The GOP senators will look like they are interested in doing their jobs.
2. They can reject Garland and force president Obama to nominate someone more moderate in his place. (That, by the way, is how we got Anthony Kennedy on the court.)
3. We really don't know how Merrick Garland will be as a Supreme Court justice. Many Supreme Court justices have been a surprise once seated and confirmed. Garland may turn out to be just like his replacement. Unlikely, I will admit, but it is possible.
4. The GOP Senators will get to stop explaining themselves.
Sure, the GOP can play games if they want to. But there is probably more to lose than to gain by stonewalling Garland. Perhaps a letter to your Senator will change is mind?
Posts
