Play fair in Supreme Court nomination process

Some are understandably worried about the nomination of a conservative judge to the United States Supreme Court. And they may be willing to do just about anything to keep Brett Kavanaugh from gaining a seat on the nation’s highest court. Increasingly we are seeing the politicization of the process of appointing Supreme Court judges. It likely began in 1987 when Robert Bork was nominated for the position by President Reagan. It was the first time the public really paid much attention to the process of vetting potential Supreme Court justices. It really became an issue however when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Republicans in control of Congress refused to hold nomination hearings, saying that would better be done after the next election. Because of that political power play, Garland never got a nomination hearing. Now with Kavanaugh’s nomination, some democrats are suggesting that they should work to prevent Kavanaugh from getting his nomination hearing. But that is not the way this process should work. It wasn’t right to block Garland’s hearing, and it wouldn’t be right to block Kavanaugh’s hearing. The Constitution outlines that the President nominates Supreme Court justices, and the Senate then holds hearings and a vote. That should happen in this case, even though some see blocking the hearings as the only way to keep President Trump’s appointment from being confirmed. It wasn’t right when republicans turned the process into political gamesmanship, and it wouldn’t be right for democrats to do it now.