Supreme Court vacancy: Process or prudence?

The Gazette Editorial opinion on filling the Supreme Court vacancy missed several important points. President Barack Obama should nominate someone who will provide balance on the court and represent the compelling interests of the American people. What we expect from the president is another ideological choice and then an Obama attack and bullying campaign. I believe the U.S. Senate should hold hearings and show the American people that President Obama has not represented their interests but has tried to pack the court. He has repeatedly divided the American people.

A president is sworn in the oath of office to preserve and follow the U.S. Constitution. The design of the U.S. Constitution is a brilliant system of checks and balances in establishing our American democracy. The Supreme Court is part of those checks and balances. The Supreme Court is not and should not be a political institution but it can be politicized by its makeup. President Obama has previously nominated and elevated two ideological justices to the Court. In my opinion President Obama's duty is to represent all of the American people and offer a nomination that will maintain balance on the court. His duty is to replace Anton Scalia, a devout constitutional originalist, with a like-minded justice to maintain balance and judicial prudence.

The U.S. Senate's duty under the Constitution is to provide advice and consent by holding nominations up to the light and reveal the true nature of the nominated individual. It is also the duty of the U.S. Senate in providing advice and consent to reject a choice of another left wing jurist, no matter how well qualified the person may be perceived to be. It is a difficult but very important task to explain and persuade the American people of the importance of this action. The Gazette in its Editorial dwelled on the simple administrative process of the president making a nomination. It is lamentable that The Gazette was unable to understand and represent the true interests of a broader range of the American people by explaining the equally important duties of advice and consent by the U.S. Senate and the maintenance of balance on the court by the president.

This situation reminds me of the nomination of Robert Bork who was ostracized and then rejected as a Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Senate, dominated by the Democratic Party, not only rejected Robert Bork but conducted a malicious hearing filled with personal attacks. Ted Kennedy lead the vicious charge. While it was Kennedy's right to oppose the nomination Kennedy lowered the standard for civil behavior in the American politic in the process. The American people have suffered ever since and today we have almost total division.

We have seen Executive abuses over the past seven years with President Obama. So, the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate should hold hearings. They should provide advice and consent and expose the extremism in the expected selection. They should stand up and vote to represent the principles upon which our Declaration and Constitution were founded and reject another ideological choice.

' Gary Ellis, of Cedar Rapids, is secretary of the Linn County Republican Central Committee. This opinion is his own, and not necessarily representative of the committee. Comments: egarye@cs.com