The sides seem dug in. Determined. No one will budge. The President recommends a new Supreme Court Justice to replace (no one of course replaces this justice) Justice Scalia. Merrick Garland. A good solid judge but probably more liberal than Scalia.
The GOP controlled Senate (elections do matter) say not even a hearing. No vote for sure. So the MSN blames: The Senators of course.
Now the argument ought to be – in opposition to the Biden rule – this is a game changer for the Court and it ought to await the new President. The people decide.
BUT, I would have hearings. Ask tough questions. Ask about great Scalia cases and dissents. Make it clear to the American people how wonderful the late justice was. And Judge Garland will have to either try to agree with Scalia or say no I am not a strict constructionist or a textual judicial conservative. Now senators need to be ready to confront Judge Garland on inconsistencies between Scalia’s judicial philosophy and his.
THEN and only THEN reject the judge because he will almost for sure show he is no Scalia. And then the senators ought to propose more appropriate names to the President. Ted Cruz would be a good start.
I do not expect WashPo or NYT to agree but it looks fair and it is fair: Give the judge a chance. But I am certain Judge Garland is no Scalia. He will fail the test. Then reject him. But the “no hearings, no vote” strategy is a loser with people. the voters want the Senate to be fair.
Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders