The Republican seeking his second term declared after the meeting that he continues to support his caucus’s decision not to do its constitutional duty. He opposes conducting the confirmation process, thus ensuring that the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia will continue for more than 400 days. The average vacancy on the court lasts 67 days.
Scranton Times-Tribune: Editorial: Toomey skirts accountability
By the Editorial Board – April 17, 2016
Sen. Pat Toomey doubled down on his obstruction last week after meeting with Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
The Republican seeking his second term declared after the meeting that he continues to support his caucus’s decision not to do its constitutional duty. He opposes conducting the confirmation process, thus ensuring that the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia will continue for more than 400 days. The average vacancy on the court lasts 67 days.
Mr. Toomey declared after his meeting with Judge Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District, that he now opposes him on the merits. Judge Garland, the senator said, would not “be aggressive in acting as a check on an administration.”
He and his obstructionist colleagues hope that the appointment ultimately will be made by a Republican president to prevent a majority of Democratic appointees to the court. They couch that blatantly political objective in grand terms, saying that the voters in the impending presidential election should have a say in selecting the next justice.
But voters already had a say in selecting President Obama, twice, and there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Mr. Toomey and his cohorts to invalidate the last year of a presidential term.
Because Mr. Toomey also is up for election, it is crucial that he endorse a fair confirmation process for Judge Garland. His opposition to the nomination best would be expressed in a formal vote — for which voters could hold him accountable — rather than in blatant obstruction and his impression from a brief meeting with the nominee.
###