Recently, President Obama announced his nomination to replace late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama’s selection was Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit Merrick Garland.
Almost instantly after Scalia’s passing, the discussion in American politics became about how a Republican-controlled Senate would never allow a hearing for an Obama-nominated justice, let alone fill the seat with one.
Yet as Republicans remain adamantly opposed to allowing a hearing for Garland, they find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Republicans are led in their charge by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley is part of the proverbial rock in this scenario.
On the one hand, delaying the Senate hearing amid a particularly difficult time for the GOP puts the party in jeopardy of losing its majority. According to a Washington Post article published in early 2015, “Seven of [the] 24 Republican seats [up for grabs] are in states that President Obama won not once but twice: Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.” The Iowa seat to which the article refers, of course, is that of 82-year-old Grassley.
As for the hard place, if the GOP-dominated Senate does choose to conduct a hearing for Garland, Republicans may head toward a “liberal” judge on the Supreme Court and a 5-4 split against them.
So when faced with a virtually unwinnable situation, the GOP will have to work in unison to arrive at a decision. The Daily Iowan Editorial Board believes that the only logical choice at this point is for the Senate to at least hold a hearing for Garland. First, this action by no means guarantees his appointment and, second, having the hearing will indicate to the American voting public that the party is at least willing to work with Democrats.
There are, however, more reasons for the Senate to conduct a hearing for Garland. For example, the latest polls for a hypothetical general election have both Democratic candidates beating Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz. So if the Senate refuses to go forward with Garland, a Democratic president (or a democratic-socialist president, for that matter) may work with a Democratic Senate to nominate an even more liberal Supreme Court justice. If that happens, the GOP will have lost the battle and the war.
The GOP is currently dealing with a leading candidate that party leaders despise. Across several caucuses and primaries, there has been only one candidate that has captures a majority of the vote in any state. On March 12, Cruz took 66.3 percent of the Wyoming Republican caucus. And although Republican front-runner Trump has come close to capturing a majority in many states, he has not yet succeeded in proving his ability in the general election.
Furthermore, the GOP is struggling with internal debates on key issues: how hard gay-marriage legislation should be battled, Planned Parenthood, and health-care reform to name a few. Add in the potential to lose control of all three branches of the U.S. government and the GOP is staring at a tough four years.