EDITORIAL: Don’t look for fast action on Supreme Court nominee

After Judge Merrick Garland was left waiting for a hearing for most of 2016, no one should expect swift confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant position on the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Tuesday night, Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the court, where, if he is confirmed, he likely would be a conservative voice for decades. One never knows how a justice will perform once appointed to the nation’s highest court, but indications are the composition of the Supreme Court with Gorsuch seated would not be appreciably different than it was before the conservative Antonin Scalia died last year.

Both of Georgia’s U.S. senators quickly reacted positively to Gorsuch’s nomination. Sen. Johnny Isakson said Gorsuch “shares the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s commitment to starting all constitutional analysis with the actual text of the Constitution. In addition, Judge Gorsuch’s distinguished service on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals provides vital, relevant experience for service on our nation’s highest court.”

Sen. David Perdue said, “Throughout his career Judge Gorsuch has stood steadfast in his support of our Constitution and the founding principles it enshrines: economic opportunity, fiscal responsibility, limited government and individual liberty. These principles are what make the United States exceptional, and each branch of government shares the responsibility for protecting these rights. Judge Gorsuch has led a remarkable career both in the private and public sectors and demonstrated a keen understanding and appreciation of the law.”

That high praise, not surprisingly, was not shared by Democratic senators, who are still stinging over Garland’s treatment at the hands of GOP senators, including Isakson and Perdue, who said the choice to fill the justice position should be left to the winner of last year’s presidential election. After the disastrous 2016 elections, Democrats have few ways of holding up Republicans from moving forward, with their strongest political tools concentrated in the Senate, where procedural maneuvers, such as the ones employed Tuesday to hold up committee action on Trump nominees, are available.

Democratic senators’ biggest tool is the filibuster, which can hold up action unless 60 senators agree to move forward. With 52 Republicans in the Senate, that can be a formidable option. It also could be short-lived. When they last had the majority, Democratic senators, with Sen. Harry Reid in charge and frustrated by what they saw as GOP obstruction, set off the so-called nuclear option for every presidential appointment other than Supreme Court justices. The nuclear option stripped away the 60-senator majority requirement, allowing confirmations with simple majority votes. It was a mistake that they should be regretting now.

In reasonable times, one would expect Gorsuch to undergo intense and pointed scrutiny by senators out to make political points. Certainly, he’s not someone Democrats are comfortable with, but, as Garland would have been had he gotten consideration by Republicans last year, there’s no obvious reason not to confirm unless something unexpected is discovered. The balance of the court would be where it was, with four conservatives, four liberals and Justice Anthony Kennedy often the swing vote. Democrats would not be in the position they would be in with a Garland on the court, but they’d be no worse off than they were before.

The bigger court battles loom with possible future nominations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80 and Justice Stephen Breyer is 78, with Ginsburg and Breyer both liberal. If any of the three leaves the court and is replaced by a conservative judge, the court likely would lean heavily conservative for quite some time.

And these are not necessarily reasonable times. To their credit, Republicans returned to the previous rules when they won back the Senate majority, but a precedent was set by the Democrats’ action. Republican senators have to wonder whether Democrats would do the same thing again when — in politics, it’s usually a question of when not if in regard to majorities changing — they regain the Senate majority, and whether Supreme Court justice nominations would be exempt.

Under Reid, what was unthinkable for many senators happened. GOP senators and those they take counsel from are likely already considering which is more important — the composition of the Supreme Court, which would have impact for decades, or the maintaining of a long-standing Senate rule that gives an important voice to the minority, a rule the other party, misguidedly, we believe, has shown it will do away with for political expedience.