The last time Americans spoke, they called for a check and balance on the president’s vision for the country. And now, as President Obama attempts to reshape the court through a liberal nominee on his way out the door, Senate Republicans are calling for Americans to be allowed to speak again before such an important decision is made.
What would the New York Times editorial page say about this? Turns out they would fully agree. At least they did in 1987, when a newly-elected Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate rejected President Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork.
"The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year." (New York Times Editorial, "Against Robert Bork; His Bill of Rights Is Different," 10/5/87)
The American people deserve better than a brazenly partisan nomination made in the middle of a presidential election – one that would flip the balance of the court and could change the direction of the country for decades to come.