Ed Gillespie argues that it’s time for Republican Senators to adopt a less deferential approach to judicial nominations.
In leading the White House efforts to confirm Roberts and serving as a “sherpa” for Alito’s confirmation, I argued strongly along with many Senate Republicans that Democrats would be mistaken to change the historic standard for confirmation to the nation’s highest court. Since they did, however, those same Senate Republicans would be mistaken if they didn’t apply that same standard to President Obama’s nominee.
Republicans cannot accept the premise that it’s okay for liberals to vote against Supreme Court nominees who believe in a strict constructionist judicial philosophy but not okay for conservatives to vote against those who embrace empathetic activism on the bench.
The encroachment on executive prerogative is unfortunate, and its polarizing effect is unhealthy. But the shift in the balance of power from the presidency to Congress inherent in this approach is less troublesome than the inevitable leftward shift of our highest court if Republicans maintain the traditional standard while Democrats deploy an ideological one.
I understand this view, even as I lament it. I continue to believe the Senate should maintain a more deferential approach — much like Senate Republicans adopted toward Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. I also fear there may be no going back. If Senate Republicans follow Gillespie’s advice — and Gillespie is hardly the only one urging this course — I hope they will also promise to restore the status quo ante if Senate Democrats will commit to follow suit.