If they knew what’s good for them, U.S. Senate Republicans had best seriously consider doing their sworn constitutional duty and hold a session to consider the appointment of Judge Merrick Garland as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In their gridlock fashion, most of them won’t even deign to meet Garland, much less give him a hearing. Their bull-headed opposition is, of course, because he was nominated by President Barack Obama, who has been for seven years the sourpuss Republicans’ arch-nemesis.
The reason Republicans should consider giving Garland a go and probably even confirm him is because he might be the best chance they’ve got right now or in the future. Too many of these dug-in Republican do-nothings are banking their bets on what they assume is their chance to take the White House this November. Trouble is, they’re counting their chickens before – way before – they’re hatched. They’re counting on wishful thinking, hoping enough Americans will reject Hillary Clinton as an untrustworthy lying sneak, which is the image they have so persistently created through a relentless smear campaign based on unproven suspicions – the Benghazi hearings being just one example. Right now, they are seriously salivating, eager to see her indicted by the FBI.
They are so cocksure Clinton (or perhaps Bernie Sanders, if nominated) will lose the presidential election, and then, once a Republican wins, they can appoint their own right-wing nominee (another Antonin Scalia) as Supreme Court justice and all will be well.
But whoa! Not so fast, amigos! With the ongoing Republican Party disaster, with headliners like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as the only hopes (so far) for the presidency, it might be best to stop being smug about Hillary’s defeat.
Most rational American voters know there is no such creature as a politician who never tells a lie, never fudges on facts, never makes a mistake or changes policies. It comes with the territory. Still, Hillary is a paragon of intelligence, virtue and experience compared to Demagogue Donald and Tedious Ted. Either one of them as nominee is not only likely to lose the election but unwittingly take down Senate Republicans in the process.
Of course, in politics anything’s possible, but at this point Republicans should not be planning a victory jig. Far from it. Especially when its national nominating convention in Cleveland in the heat of this summer might be the ultimate train wreck, if not a riot. It might well lead to electoral catastrophe come November.
And then, they can boo-hoo all they want about not getting their choice for a Supreme Court justice, and they can cry and whine some more when Hillary, in the next four years, has the chance to nominate one or two more justices. And if the Republicans lose their Senate majority in the next election (a real possibility, according to many shrewd pundits), Hillary’s choices will be confirmed since only the Senate, not the House, must confirm Supreme Court justices.
The Senate Republicans should weigh their options. Garland, by all accounts, has long been a non-partisan, fair-minded, impartial judge, even a favorite of rational Republicans. Wouldn’t he be better than a Hillary nominee far to the left – intolerable to Republicans’ tastes?
If they knew what’s good for them, the Obama-haters in the Senate would stop their obstructionist games; they should hold hearings and then approve the nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court – for their own good. It just might be the only semblance of a chance they get to influence that High Court in a long, long time.
