A few days ago, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a pledge that they would refuse to hold hearings on any nomination to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court until after the inauguration of a new President, thus putting still more starch in the GOP's resistance to an Obama nomination.
This should not surprise us. It is what we would expect from the party that flatly refused to accept the results of the last two Presidential elections. In effect, their little fit of pique about the Supreme Court is just a smaller manifestation of their overarching strategy of refusing to participate in the governing of the country until the people get around to seeing the error of their (the people's) ways and elect a Republican. Against all logic and foreseeable odds, this strategy has won them control of Congress.
And that is why, despite objections and outrage, the reality is that the Republicans have the political power to block a nomination. Furthermore some precedent exists - both parties have at times argued for putting off such a decision when we are near the end of a President's term (but define end.) Still, I find the GOP's adamantine refusal puzzling and paradoxical.
The stance appears to be at odds with typical conservative reverence for the Constitution, and the originalist interpretative views championed by none other than one Antonin Scalia. Would not a serious Republican want the Court to remain functional, rather than languish as a lame duck along with the President? What would Scalia himself have said is proper procedure? Further, when they insist that the nomination of a new Justice should await the election, they expose so clearly their conviction that the Supreme Court should be politicized.
Politically, depriving the Court of its ninth Justice does not seem to gain the party anything. Some voters who pay attention may blame Mitch McConnell and the various Republicans now vying to be candidate for President, for pouring still more sand in the gears of government - exactly the thing that voters appear to be fed up with. (And by the way, what if they need the Court to put a Republican in the White House, as they did in 2000?).
More to the point though is that the GOP may get a better deal now than later. Betting now is that Obama will nominate a stellar legal mind of high repute, a moderate rather than a liberal firebrand. That seems eminently sensible, and helps avoid polarization of the Court. But no one really knows now who will sit in the White House by the end of January 2017. "Traditional" politicians like McConnell may be a little leery of whom a Trump, a Cruz, or even a Rubio, might nominate. And what if Clinton or Sanders wins? Neither would feel much compunction to propose a moderate. Further, changes in the composition of the Senate might (surprisingly) shift a majority back to the Dems.
Latest news is that a couple of ranking Republicans have agreed to meet Obama on the Supreme Court topic. It will be interesting to see whether they stick with their refusal to deal.