Republican lockdown is a mistake

It felt like a reset moment.

An iconic, influential and consequential U.S. Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, died. That stunning news suddenly shone a very bright light on the importance of the institution he served, and on the presidency and U.S. Senate, which nominate and confirm its justices. It was a grim reminder of the critical issues facing the court, now thrown into uncertainty.

After months of a reality show presidential campaign complete with a laugh track, it felt like a sobering national jolt. It's high time for our institutions to actually work.

Send out the clowns. Paging the adults.

Yeah. Not so much.

Within hours of the news, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that the world's greatest deliberative body would not deliberate at all if President Barack Obama, who has 11 months left in office, dares nominate a justice. The Senate would go into judicial lockdown until January 2017 and leave the Supreme Court short.

McConnell swiftly was dittoed by Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee that handles SCOTUS nominations. Grassley closed the gate only two hours after telling the Des Moines Register he couldn't make a 'prognostication” on the process.

Then, Saturday night brought the most cringe-worthy Republican presidential debate to date. So much for a sobering jolt. But, hey, the TV ratings were huge!

Why not just let the process work? Let the president we elected twice for full four-year terms make a nomination. And let the Republican-controlled Senate we elected hold hearings and a vote. If a majority of senators oppose the choice or want to wait for President Cruz, go ahead and vote no.

It's not tough. It's all right there in the playbook, aka the Constitution.

Otherwise, the GOP's fingers-in-the-ears-nah-nah-nah strategy boils down to more politically over-calculated obstructionism, the sort that's lifted congressional approval to the lofty teens. It will be Exhibit A in a Democratic claim that Republicans can't govern, a claim the GOP once vowed to refute.

And what if Obama nominates Jane Kelly of Cedar Rapids, a judge on the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals mentioned often in recent days as a possible pick?

Kelly was confirmed by the Senate 96-0 in April 2013, with Grassley's strong support. She's a well-regarded former federal public defender whom 8th Circuit Judge David Hansen called a 'forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” with an 'exceptionally keen intellect.” Grassley quoted Hansen's assessment on the Senate floor.

Now, apparently, he would refuse to give her a Judiciary hearing. Because, Obama.

Sure, Democrats probably would do the same thing if roles were reversed. And it would be just as misguided.

But one thing I don't mind is putting the Supreme Court at the center of a presidential race. In typical years, it gets far too little attention. Not this time. GOP contenders who wish we had a court that would have denied civil rights to same-sex couples and canceled health coverage for millions will have to explain. Democrats will have to outline a competing vision. It will make for an interesting debate.

Maybe even a serious one, if the laugh track ever fades.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com