Are Democrats hypocrites for chiding the GOP about Scalia's successor?

Democrats are critical of Republicans' promise to block any Supreme Court nomination. But considering the polarization in modern politics, critics say they'd  likely do the same.

Carlos Barria /Reuters
The bench of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is seen draped with black wool crepe in memoriam inside the Supreme Court in Washington, February 16, 2016.

As the mourning of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death Saturday quickly gave way to heated debate over his replacement, Democrat and Republican leaders are locked in a partisan quagmire: Despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s warning against any new nomination, President Barack Obama announced Sunday that he will in fact, nominate a successor.

The matter is now split clean across party lines, with Republican lawmakers and candidates standing behind Mr. McConnell while their Democratic counterparts chide them for obstructionism.

Hillary Clinton, for instance, posted an 11-tweet rant late Monday night.

“The need to fill the Supreme Court vacancy is not an occasion for politics as usual. This has real and urgent stakes for Americans now,” she wrote. “I have news for Republicans who would put politics over the Constitution: Refusing to do your duty isn’t righteous, it's disgraceful.”

Her call to action is echoed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

But given the highly polarized nature of Washington politics, it's to be expected that either party would oppose a Supreme Court appointment by a president of the opposite party.

In fact, the exact same scenario as what is happening now could have been flipped nearly a decade ago, in the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency.

As Politico reported in 2007, Sen. Chuck Schumer, a moderate Democrat from New York, said then that his party should block any additional Supreme Court appointments by President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” the senator told the American Constitution Society convention in July of 2007. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Under Mr. Bush, two appointments were confirmed: Justices John Roberts and Samuel A. Alito. The latter, as Senator Schumer and his fellow Democrats argued, tipped the ideological balance of the bench toward the right. Schumer would go on to say that his reservation in advocating against Justice Alito was his “greatest regret” in that session of Congress.

Traditionally, political ideology played a minimal role in the high court’s nominations. As reported by The New York Times in 2014, presidents instead prioritized religious or ethnic affiliations, the opportunity for political favors, and legal ability.

“Even when ideology was their main concern, they often bet wrong,” The Times’ Adam Liptak wrote. “That is why Republican presidents routinely appointed justices who were or would turn out to be liberals. Among them were Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Harry A. Blackmun.”

But today, political leanings are much more pivotal in the selection of the next justice. With a conservative-leaning bench, a good chunk of Supreme Court decisions are divided 5-4 along party lines. In other words, Republican appointees tend to vote with the conservative bloc and vice versa for Democratic appointees, with the exception of Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy as intermittent but critical swing votes.

As Andrew Prokop at Vox wrote from the perspective of McConnell, the Republican reluctance to accept nominations is reasonable under the current political climate. He goes on:

Yes, yes, in suggesting that President Obama shouldn't appoint any replacement for Scalia, and that he should just leave it to the next president, I am rhetorically going further than others have in the past.

But really I've just hit the fast-forward button. We would have ended up opposing whomever Obama nominated, because that person would, of course, have had liberal views.

And while it’s historically rare for Supreme Court appointments to successfully make it to the bench during election years, it has happened. The most recent example was Justice Kennedy’s confirmation in 1988 – just months before the presidential election. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, he was approved unanimously by Congress – and a Democrat-controlled one no less.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to