Senate Democrats: Take the High Road
It’s just setting in for most Republican leaders in the Senate that Donald Trump is set to lose the presidential election in what appears to be a landslide defeat to Secretary Hillary Clinton, similar to 2008 Obama v. McCain. To add fuel to the fire, the Republicans are squared to lose their majority in the Senate, having control only 2 years. This puts Republicans in a very ironic position, they might actually want to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland. That’s right; despite months — the longest amount of time for any Supreme Court Nominee — Senate Republicans may move to hold hearings for the nominee. This is an extreme 180, but if it looks like Hillary Clinton might get her choice of a nominee come January 20th, even the harshest critics, such as Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, will come on board. In fact, it could be the first act of true bipartisanship since Republicans took the House in 2010. But this is all assuming that Merrick Garland remains the nominee, and doesn’t withdraw his nomination. Some Democratic enthusiasts believe we shouldn’t allow the Republicans to have this opportunity because of their insistence that the new president should have the choice. Look, I’m as angry as anyone about the Senate not giving President Obama’s nominee even the slightest chance, but we as Democrats can’t fight fire with fire. Instead of complaining about what nominee we could have in a Hillary Clinton presidency, we should focus on the good things about the nominee that was chosen. First of all, the nominee is an excellent choice; he is experienced, dedicated, respected, and a strong constitutionalist. He will bring the Supreme Court miles ahead of where it was and will give us a chance with many of the decisions that are currently tied 4–4, including President Obama’s legacy-creating immigration executive action. Also, Hillary Clinton will get her chance to nominate new Supreme Court Justices. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 83 and Steven Breyer is 77, they are due for retirement any time. That’s two more chances to appoint high quality, young judges that can set legal precedents for the next 30 years or more. Furthermore, even if Democrats do retake control of the Senate, they will not have enough votes to end a filibuster, which is likely to halt a nominee in 2017 or afterward. Finally, it would set a precedent that it is okay to deny a president their nominee, even if it leaves a vacancy for months, not to mention it would make Senate Democrats look spiteful. Playing politics usually leaves you burned, just wait and ask the Republicans who lose their elections on November 9th. It’s best to take the high road now, appreciate our nominee, and confirm him with unusual bipartisanship. Leave the dirty tricks to the Republicans.
