Wilson: Senate not 'letting voters decide'

Author Upton Sinclair once noted, “It is difficult to make a man understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

And that’s where we are, four weeks after the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. During a Republican presidential debate later that night, candidates argued President Obama should ignore his Constitutional duty to nominate a replacement, and if he did the 56-44 Republican Senate should deny confirmation hearings or a vote.

“Let the voters decide,” they said, and the next president can nominate somebody in 11 months.

Obama instead listened to the Constitution, and to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee like Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

“The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate, but I don’t believe him,” Hatch said. “(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the (liberal base) wants.”

A few days later, Obama named ... wait for it ... Merrick Garland.

Within hours, the Republican Party of New Mexico said this “fine man” was now a “Clinton-appointed judge who, despite his radical anti-Second Amendment record, President Obama is touting as a moderate,” and others followed suit.

Some Republicans refuse to meet with Garland, while Hatch and others floated the idea of confirming Garland in the lame duck session if Republicans lose the Senate and/or the presidency. In that case, they’d prefer Garland over whoever Democrats would nominate in 2017.

This is where, “Let the voters decide,” falls flat on its face.

• The voters did decide in 2012, when they gave Barack Obama a four-year term. Not a 3.08-year term.

• If the Republicans lose the Senate, the voters decided they don’t want Republicans confirming a justice. A lame-duck session would say, “Let the voters decide, unless they disagreed with us.” To his credit, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has raised said objection to his colleagues.

• If the president loses powers because it’s an election year, why not the senators up for election? Send those 34 home (24 Republicans, 10 Democrats), and let the 36-20 Democratic Senate handle business.

Obama, if he wishes to box Republicans in further, should add an expiration date to Garland’s nomination. No lame-duck hearings. A Supreme Court nomination process has never gone beyond 125 days between nomination and vote, and eight months should be enough time even for this do-nothing Congress to do its job. They can still vote no.

It’s no mystery why Republicans are stalling. Even with a pick like Garland, the court moves further left than it has in decades, and that scares a Republican base that just saw a 5-4 conservative court uphold gay marriage and Obamacare.

It’s also clear that if Republicans want to take a calculated political risk with the Supreme Court vacancy, that’s a benefit they earned by winning Senate control in the 2014 midterm elections.

But they’re not letting the voters decide, and that’s not difficult to understand.

Kevin Wilson is managing editor of the Clovis News Journal. He can be reached at 575-763-3431, ext. 320, or by email:

[email protected]