.png)
 |
| Isaac Feinn Class of 2019 |
In wake of a tumultuous season for United States politics, both the Left and Right can agree that 2016 will be a year of vital importance for the direction of our nation. As if the presidential race were not creating enough tension, we must also face filling the Supreme Court vacancy while our current president closes his term. This issue introduces conflict for Republicans and Democrats alike, but this post is meant to persuade the Right minds to fill the vacancy with President Obama’s nominee. The Republicans currently argue that Americans should have a say in the next Supreme Court Justice via electing a new president to make the decision, but this argument does not take into account three important points:
First, it is the Republican Party’s responsibility. As the highest legislating body in the United States, unmatched in prestige, importance, and selectivity, an intentional and prolonged vacancy is both embarrassing and harmful. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to have a finite panel to resolve issues no one else can; right now, with eight out of nine seats filled, a possible 4-4 decision would result in that case defaulting to a lower court. In essence, the existing vacancy prevents the Supreme Court from settling unresolved cases, arguably its primary function. Along with the responsibility to uphold the efficacy of our legislating process, Republicans also have the responsibility to uphold the reputation of their party. Refusing to hold hearings and make a decision harms the Republican Party in the long-run. Senatorial reelections occur every two years, and the way Republicans currently navigate through this problem portrays our party as inefficient. Shown in this poll, more than 60% of Americans say that the Senate should at least hold nomination hearings. Nevertheless, Republicans refuse to even consider a nomination: an unprofessional act that will not leave a positive taste in voter’s mouths during Senate reelections. Working with President Obama would display bipartisanship, something the Republican party has shown little of in recent years, and would bode well for their popularity. Altogether, it is the Senate (and more specifically the duty of the Republican Senators) to preserve our justice system, a notion well known by American voters.
Second, the current nominee is the least left candidate we are likely to see. President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, is a moderate candidate approaching old age. Let’s think about this for a moment. With a likely Hilary vs Trump ticket, polls like this indicate persuasively that Hilary would secure the next presidency. If this happens, Obama’s nominee, Garland, is the Republican Party’s best chance at a conservative Justice. At that point, the current Republican rhetoric aiming to prolong the vacancy would no longer stand, and Hilary would have the unobstructed ability to nominate a young, left candidate. And if Hillary were elected, this decision would also be supported by the American people’s demonstrated desire for democratic dogma. Filling the vacancy right now provides Republicans with their best chance at preventing left ideology from taking hold of the Supreme Court. By delaying nomination hearings, Republicans are toppling the first domino in a sequence of events that will result in liberal ideologies being increasingly espoused from the highest court in the United States for decades to come.
Third, waiting to fill the vacancy will minutely impact the long term balance of the court – and this is because the possibility of future vacancies is high for the next presidential term(s). According to this study, the average age of retirement or death of a Supreme Court Justice remains around 75, an age that four of our current Justices will reach in four to eight years (the length of two terms): Thomas at 67, Breyer at 77, Kennedy at 79, and Ginsberg at 82. This is critical; the next president could potentially fill four seats, tipping the balance in his/her party’s favor 6-3. With the current nomination issue, a moderate candidate (already established as the Republican’s probable best choice) will do little to oppose that 6-3 ratio. Waiting for the results of the presidential election to nominate a Justice guarantees little in the long term; that is why we must return to the first point and fulfill our responsibility by preserving the proper functionality of the Supreme Court.
It is chilling to think that the party whose candidate acquires the next presidency will potentially also decide the direction of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. But that is an issue we can address when that time comes. For now, we are faced with a problematic vacancy in our highest court. Because it is our responsibility to fill it, the current nominee is our best option, and waiting any longer affects little in the long run, Republicans should begin reviewing the current nominee, and hopefully solve at least one of our tumultuous problems.
Isaac Feinn is a freshman McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville. He studies biology and political science.