In waiting to consider Supreme Court nominee, Grassley is doing his job

I've had the privilege of serving with one of the Senate's foremost work horses - Iowa's own Chuck Grassley - for more than 35 years. Sen. Grassley has managed not to miss a vote in a record-setting 23 years - when he was home touring the damage of the Flood of 1993 - and yet still manages to hold town-hall meetings in all 99 of his state's counties every year. He sets the gold standard of service in the Senate.

Grassley's focus on Iowa hasn't stopped him from becoming one of the most accomplished legislators with whom I have served. In Washington, he is known on both sides of the aisle as perhaps Congress' foremost advocate of accountability and transparency in government, with accomplishments ranging from enacting important protections for whistleblowers to fighting the abuse of taxpayer dollars.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley has been thrust into the spotlight after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent passing, and Washington Democrats are using the occasion to launch the nastiest attacks possible against him.

Having served in that same role for more than eight years, I know that the Judiciary Committee chairman's position is no stranger to controversy and political hardball. But the vicious and unfair attacks lately on Grassley's independence and work ethic have gone too far, and I feel compelled to defend not only his outstanding record of service, but also his principled position that the Senate should not confirm Scalia's successor until after the current presidential election.

Those who are urging the Senate to immediately confirm any nominee from President Barack Obama use the slogan: 'Do your job.” They claim, in effect, that the Constitution places the Senate at the president's beck and call, that our 'job” is to conduct the confirmation process whenever it is politically convenient for President Barack Obama.

The Constitution itself plainly proves them wrong.

In Article II, Section 2, the Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate, and to the Senate the separate power of advice and consent - leaving to each the judgment of how to exercise their power. The Senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its advice and consent power in each unique situation. Over the years, the Senate has considered (or not considered) nominations in different ways at different times, depending on the circumstances.

The Senate has never confirmed a nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy that occurred this late in a term-limited president's time in office. Indeed, this is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting in a presidential election.

In the previous two instances in 1956 and 1968, the Senate did not confirm a nominee until the following year.

In addition to the historical precedent for waiting to confirm a nominee until after the conclusion of a presidential election, doing so helps preserve the integrity of the courts. Grassley and I have both witnessed how the judicial appointment process - especially for the Supreme Court - has become increasingly politicized and confrontational, often diminishing the perceived independence of the federal judiciary. The current presidential election cycle already is more hostile and divisive than any in recent memory. Proceeding with the confirmation process after the electoral storm has passed helps to minimize partisanship and maximize fairness to a Supreme Court nominee.

That's one reason leading Democrats have long advocated for deferring the confirmation process in such circumstances: Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, urged in President George W. Bush's last year in office that 'judicial vacancies in the last year of a president's term (should) remain vacant.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the incoming Democratic leader, argued in July 2007 - with a year and a half left in Bush's term and with no seat even vacant - that the Senate 'should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

During his tenure as Judiciary Committee chairman in 1992, Joe Biden argued that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in that presidential election year, 'the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

In waiting to fill the Scalia vacancy until after this presidential election cycle, Grassley chose the right approach for the Senate, the judiciary and the country.

Whether you agree with him or not, it's clear that he made a reasonable and well-supported judgment - the kind he has made his whole career.

His independence and his steadfast willingness to work constructively on behalf of his fellow Iowans is vital to resolving important matters at stake in this debate.

' Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is president pro tempore of the United States Senate. Comments: (202) 224-5251; www.hatch.senate.gov