Voters who are concerned about who is added to the Supreme Court over the next four years need to remember that a ninth justice could be added to the bench now.
The Senate should hold a hearing for President Obama’s nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland. He was nominated back on March 16. The fact that Senate Republicans are refusing to hold a hearing is a virtually unprecedented level of obstruction.
Delaying this important decision is not the norm. Six Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1900.
Justice Merrick became a federal judge in 1997 in a strong bipartisan vote of 76-23. Kansas Senator Pat Roberts was among the Republicans who voted for him then.
“But it’s not about the nominee, it’s about the process,” Roberts now says.
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, another Republican who voted for Merrick, said in 1997, “Playing politics with judges is unfair, and I am sick of it.”
He may still say that, but he wants to delay the hearing until after the election. Then, if the Democrats win, he might be willing to go ahead with the hearing.
Why then? Using his reasoning, why not let the next president nominate the justice, regardless of who it is? Playing politics indeed.
Meanwhile, any 4-4 splits on the Supreme Court mean the decision of a lower court stands, effectively making our Supreme Court something less than the highest court in the land.