Thanks For The Political Lesson, Senator.

       I sent an email to Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania regarding a Supreme Court appointment, or non-appointment. He responded (or more likely a staffer) that it is "extremely rare to confirm a nominee in a Presidential election year." But it's somewhat rare to appoint a nominee to the court in any year and even more unlikely in an election year.
       He goes on to state that no nominee has been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1932. But Justice Murphy was confirmed in 1940 and Justice Kennedy was confirmed in 1988. Plus there were four Justices confirmed between 1912 and 1932 bringing the total to six. Senator, you need to get your facts straight.
       It was his last statement that bothers me the most. "The vacancy created by Justice Scalia's passing is especially sensitive because it will fundamentally effect the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation or more." That's likely true, but then President G.W. Bush's appointments effected the balance of the court. In fact every appointment to the court has the effect of changing the court.
       Now if it was okay to change the balance of the court because of Bush's appointments, why is it such a problem for Obama's appointment to change the court? I think its more a case of following the ideology of one party over another rather than the seriousness of the court. To deny even a hearing on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination is strictly a partisan political maneuver designed in the hope that a Republican will be elected President so they can continue the conservative flavor of the court. Too bad the Democrats didn't pull that kind of trick when the shoe was on the other foot.
       If the Republicans can stall for over a year, then what's to stop future situations from dragging on for two or three years or longer? You don't think that could happen? I wonder if the founding fathers ever thought a Senate would drag it out for over a year?