Harkin: Leaving SUPCO seat vacant would be unprecedented

During my 30 years in the U.S. Senate, I had occasion to vote on many Supreme Court judges. I voted 'yes” on some, 'no” on others, but at no time was it ever seriously proposed that we not vote on a nominee. Even further from any rational consideration was the proposal that the majority party, whether Democrat or Republican, would refuse to even meet with a nominee or refuse to hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee and refuse to vote on a nominee. So the position taken now by the majority leader and majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee is simply astounding, and not in keeping with a 'strict,” or even 'loose,” construction of the Constitution.

Much has been made of past statements of Senators on this issue of voting on Supreme Court nominees during a Presidential election year. But these were speeches or statements made by individuals, not the position of the majority leader or the majority party at that time in the Senate.

On February 13, 1988, a presidential election year, I and my colleague from Iowa voted to confirm Justice Kennedy, a Republican nominee of then President Reagan. In fact, six Justices have been confirmed during presidential election years since 1900. Also, since 1975, the year I was first elected to Congress, the average time it took the Senate to act on a nominee was 67 days. There are more than 300 days left before the end of this administration, more than enough time for hearings and a vote. It would be unprecedented, and irresponsible, to let a vacancy on the Supreme Court extend into 2017. The cry of 'let the people decide” in the election this fall blindly ignores the fact that the American people did decide-twice-to elect Barack Obama President, which he will be until January 20, 2017.

Lastly, the Constitution is very clear on this: Article 2, Section 2 says the President '....by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint....Judges of the Supreme Court...”. It does not say 'may” appoint. Therefore, for President Obama to fulfill his oath of office, he must appoint a person to fill the vacancy created by Justice Scalia's death, and the Senate must give its 'Advice and Consent” by having hearings and a vote on the nominee. It doesn't mean the Judiciary Committee or the Senate has to confirm who the President nominates, but constitutional the Senate must act, or Senators violate their oath of office.

So, let's turn down the rhetoric, let the President put forward a nominee-maybe even an Iowan-then let the Senate have its vote on confirming or denying the President's nominee.

This is the responsible, and constitutionally correct way to proceed.

' Tom Harkin (D-IA) of Cumming, was a U.S. Senator from 1985 to 2015. Comments: senator.harkin@yahoo.com