President Obama should just work around Congress and appoint a new Supreme Court justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia, the New York Times’ editorial board suggested this week.
The president “appears to be succumbing once again to his persistent belief that congressional Republicans can be reasoned with if only he tries hard enough,” the paper wrote late Tuesday. “One would have thought the years of disrespect and obstruction from Capitol Hill would have cured him of this notion.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was quick after the death of Scalia to assure conservatives that the Republican-controlled Congress would not nominate a new justice in Obama’s final year in office, arguing that the nomination would, “be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the polls.”
Other Republican senators, including Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, have joined McConnell in pledging to block whomever Obama might appoint.
“It doesn’t matter how much he jumps up and down and stomps his feet, we aren’t going to let the far left get away with denying the American people the opportunity to be heard,” the Iowa lawmaker said.
For the Times, this is unacceptable and the president is wasting his time by trying to work with elected officials.
“What does Mr. Obama think he will accomplish by talking to a brick wall?” the paper’s editorial board asked, suggesting that the president should just go it alone.
“Instead of wasting his time pretending to have conversations with these people, Mr. Obama should name a replacement for the vacancy — now,” they wrote, quoting President Ronald Reagan who said in 1987, “every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people’s business in that crucially important body.”
The paper continued, writing, “It is unclear what the president is waiting for.”
“Surely the White House had a short list of candidates in hand long before Justice Scalia died. Mr. McConnell has said repeatedly that the American people should have a voice in this nomination. Well, the people have spoken: They elected Mr. Obama twice,” the paper said.
The Times didn’t always side with the president when it came to Supreme Court picks. Missing from its take Wednesday on the current fight over appointing Scalia’s successor is any mention of the messy and bitter battle surrounding the nomination of Judge Robert Bork.
In 1987, as Democrats launched a successful attack to block Bork’s confirmation, the Times wrote approvingly of their efforts, saying, “The president’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the court’s direction. Yes, but the democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist.”
Fast forward to March 2016, and the newspaper’s tone is slightly different: “By naming his pick now, Mr. Obama would force the Republicans to explain to Americans why they refuse to do their job and take a vote on a highly qualified nominee.”
