In his most recent Wall Street Journal column, James Taranto tallied where the most vulnerable Republican senators who were running for re-election in 2016 had come down on the appointment of a replacement for the associate justice seat formerly held by Antonin Scalia:
Here is what McConnell said, in a statement Saturday: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.â€
The Associated Press reports that Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin agrees. So does Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, in a Sunday statement, and the Times reports that Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania have signed on as well, “leaving nearly every vulnerable Republican incumbent backing Mr. McConnell’s pledge.â€
as I’ve been doing. He didn’t mention that Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk had his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other, as I pointed out this morning.
Those are the most vulnerable. Make of it what you please.
IMO it reaffirms that November’s election will hinge on turnout and most of them are convinced that Sen. McConnell’s stance is the one that insure their position with the Republican base. If one or both parties run a dark horse candidate it will be a turnout election all right but one like we haven’t experienced in decades if ever.
An alternative or additional explanation is that many of these states have small-d democratic cultures that doesn’t see a problem with an election being tied to an appointment.
Few states allow the chief executive to appoint Justices, just California and New Jersey. Just as many have the legislature choose: South Carolina and Virginia.
22 states have elections, including Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
24 states have nonpartisan merit commissions.
New Hampshire has a mixed system. A standing committee appointed by the Governor provides a list of suitable judges, the Governor nominates from that list, and then a five-member council elected in partisan elections votes on the nomination.
In any event, gubernatorial appointment was common when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, but became unpopular, as states choose alternative forms, as well as term-limits and retention elections. All of the purple states listed have more electoral input in the judicial selection than in the federal system.
They’re more scared of today’s base backlash than they are of November. They’re crossing their fingers and hoping the issue somehow disappears before November.
I’m not surprised by those Republicans who have not winced and backed down, following the terse, guilt-provoking recriminations by our President. Portman, Ayotte, Johnson and Toomey all have respectable conservative records, with little evidenced indulgence in dealing with politically correct behavior to appease their constituencies, like so many dems continuously do So, IMO, they simply are being true to their own beliefs.
Furthermore, there is plenty of archived precedence showing the compete hypocrisy of the flurry of democrat statements (Obama, Reid, Schumer) calling upon Republicans to rise above politics, in order to heed Constitutional responsibilities spelled out in it’s raw text. Really! It’s glaringly obvious, though, that the textual meaning is being broadly expanded by them, insinuating that Republicans must not only serve to advise and give their consent, but also approve the nomination made by a sitting president.
Of course this was not the interpretation during times when the WH was in the hands of republicans. Another man named Reynolds, Glenn Reynolds, with more candid honesty than the one here, admitted so much by saying if Romney had been President, with a democrat-empowered senate, the positions would be completely reversed — with the republicans making the same points as the dems are now making, and the dems obstructing and filibustering any presidential nomination.
Simply put, there is nothing principled going on in this current judicial debate. It’s just exemplifies more political entrenchment, displaying an ongoing disingenuous gamesmanship that dominates any bipartisan decision-making in both parties.