I believe the Republican’s refusal to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is not about principle; it is about progressive versus conservative ideologies.
There is no “final year” presidental tradition against nominations. Democrats know it; Republicans know it. It is only about preservation of power and of one ideology over the other. Both parties have asserted the same argument in years past to prevent the appointment of a justice who may not vote as they want.
Simply put, the argument is dangerous. Ideological differences between the Senate majority and the sitting president from the opposite party are likely to exist forever and for multiple terms, perhaps decades, as one party or the other controls the Senate but not the presidency. Consider this “slippery slope” hypothetical — if the Republicans’ interpretation of their duties under the Constitution is accepted, any party in the majority for an extended period could refuse its consent to any nominee, year after year, on ideological grounds and ultimately eliminate one of the three co-equal branches of government if all Supreme Court justices retired or passed. Unlikely perhaps, but think about it. Political gridlock has brought this country to a virtual standstill with no end in sight. Did our founding fathers intend to give the Senate majority the theoretical power to eliminate the Supreme Court by perpetual delay? I think not.
Let’s have a good faith vote.
Ken Karlberg, Bellingham