“Don’t Make the Supreme Court Another Victim of This Year’s Toxic Presidential Campaign” by Senator Orrin Hatch
[With snarky commentary by Jeff Klein]
“Like many Americans, I mourn deeply the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. [The surviving Supreme Court justices are also mourning; that’s why they’re all wearing black.] He was a giant of the law and a dear friend. [I hope you told him that when he was alive.] He transformed the trajectory of our nation’s highest court and helped scale back years of unbridled, unprincipled judicial activism by liberal justices intent on imposing their views on the American people. [Shame on those liberal justices! Why can’t they be like the CONSERVATIVE judges imposing their views on the American people???]
“Justice Scalia’s passing comes during a particularly contentious time in our nation’s history. [True dat.] The country is in the midst of a volatile, highly charged presidential election. [Truer than true.] Accusations of dishonesty and hypocrisy fly with abandon. [True x3.] No charge, it seems, is too base to attract media attention. [That damn Media!] The current political climate is as toxic and as polarized as I have ever seen. [And I sure hope you’re not gonna add to that polarization, Senator.]
“For this reason, I believe firmly that it would be best for the Court, and the nation, to select Justice Scalia’s replacement after the presidential election. [Well, so much for not adding to the polarization…] Adding a Supreme Court nomination to the current polarized climate would serve only to undermine the Court’s independence and drag the Court into the caustic atmosphere of the 2016 presidential race. [The Supreme Court? Independent? Who knew?]
“Throughout my 40 years in Washington, I have sought to prevent the courts from becoming a political football. [What a guy!] I have criticized attempts by Democrats to politicize the courts and to impose litmus tests on judicial nominees. [I’m sure glad Republicans don’t do that!] My concern has been with the Court as an institution, and I have sought to protect the judiciary from improper political pressure. [Not to mention protecting your corporate lobbyist friends, I am sure.]
“There is simply no way that a new justice can be confirmed in the current election-year climate without his or her nomination becoming a political firestorm. [Actually, there is a way, if the Republicans would be civil and reasonable about scheduling the hearings.] Any hearings or debates on the nomination will become little more than an opportunity for both sides to air grievances and to engage in a proxy war over the presidential campaign. [Yes! Leave the proxy wars in the Middle East, where they belong.] Both parties will inevitably use the nomination to try to position their side favorably for November and to score political points against opponents. [Thank you for explaining how politics works.]
“These are not the conditions for a fair and considered appraisal of a nominee’s qualifications. [I think you mean, “Fair and Balanced,” don’t you?] The mantra on both sides would be to win at all costs and to bloody the other side as much as possible in the process. [Isn’t that how it’s been since at least the 1990s?] 
Far better to wait until after the impending election, when cooler heads [and a Republican president?] will have at least some opportunity to prevail.
“Indeed, already there’s yelling and shouting about a potential nomination, with Democrats calling Republicans radicals and extremists for saying we should wait until after the election to fill Justice Scalia’s seat. [Well, if the shoe fits…] Such attacks would become only more vitriolic were the Senate to take up a nomination before the election. [No, not if Republicans were to act reasonably.]
“There has also been a great deal of obfuscation and misinformation about the Senate’s role in the confirmation process. [Gee, I wonder who’s been doing that?] Supporters of the President have asserted that President Obama has a “right” to fill Justice Scalia’s seat [nope, never said that] and that the Senate’s “job” is to hold hearings and vote on whomever he sends up. [Oh, sorry; it’s the Senate’s job to do nothing. Our mistake.] This is nothing more than political posturing. [Wha — political posturing?? In the United States of America??]
“To begin with, the President has no “right” to appoint nominees to the Supreme Court. [Again, never said that he/she had such a right.] The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate, but gives the Senate an equal power to confirm, or not, as it sees fit. [Yes, but –] Only with the Senate’s consent may the President fill a seat on the Supreme Court. [Yes, but –] To say the President has a “right” to fill a Supreme Court vacancy now, or at any point in time, is constitutionally illiterate. [This is a distortion of what the President’s supporters are actually saying, and you’re doing this to try to make them look dumb. But you really just end up looking like a tool of the Republican party.]
“Nor does the Constitution require the Senate to hold a hearing on a nominee, or even to take any action at all. [Now you and them there other Republicans ain’t a-gonna take advantage of that there loophole, is ya?] The Senate may exercise its constitutional prerogative to reject a presidential nomination in whatever manner it sees fit. [Please use responsibly.] For example, although in recent years it’s become customary to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominations, for the first 130 years of our nation’s history the Senate never held a hearing on any Supreme Court nominee. [Wishing it was 1873 again, Orrin?] And the Senate has chosen on multiple occasions to allow a nomination to expire rather than act on it. [Only because the sell-by date had passed.] In one case, Congress even abolished a Supreme Court seat rather than confirm the President’s nominee. [Lincoln had just been assassinated and the nation was in turmoil, you ass.] Although no two situations are exactly alike, these examples make clear that the Senate may withhold its consent in a variety of ways. [Orrin, ya shoulda been a lawyer!]
It’s been more than 100 years since a Supreme Court justice died in office during a presidential election year. [And that Senate had no problem confirming the President’s nominee for a replacement.] It’s been 130 years since a justice died in office in a presidential election year during a time of divided government. [And that Senate had no problem confirming the President’s nominee for a replacement.] And a justice has never died in office this late in a term-limited President’s last year, when voting on the President’s successor has already begun. [And a justice has never died in office in the month of February before the Senate convened and the Moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars… – I mean, we can just go on and on and on with these convoluted and silly arguments.]
“In light of the highly polarized, corrosive nature of this year’s presidential race, coupled with the fact that Americans have already begun voting on President Obama’s replacement [um… you mean successor, don’t you?], the right course of action is to wait until after this year’s election to consider a nominee to fill Justice Scalia’s seat. [And it’s the “right course of action” `cause you said so!]
“Let the American people decide whether they want Hillary Clinton or the Republican nominee to select the next Supreme Court justice. [This is really just a red herring, Senator. The American people already decided, in November 2012.] President Obama will never again face voters [lucky him], yet whoever is chosen to succeed Justice Scalia will likely serve 30 years or more. [Must. Change. That.]
“Let a new President with a clear mandate, not a term-limited President with less than one year left in office who faced a historic rebuke by voters in the last midterm election, make this crucial decision. [Reagan got the same rebuke in the 1986 midterms, yet he got no such resistance to filling the vacancy, you hypocrite.] Don’t make the Supreme Court another victim of this year’s toxic presidential campaign. [As you are now doing.] Too much is at stake. [Isn’t that the tag line of most political commercials?]”
…AND, Senator Hatch, here’s a quote from one of the articles YOU cited:
“There is, in short, no historical support for the claim that the Senate has a tradition of shutting down the Supreme Court appointment process in presidential election years. The tradition is the opposite, for the Senate to consider Supreme Court nominations, no matter the timing, and actually to confirm nominees when they are moderate and well qualified.”
