Letter to the Editor / SCOTUS: The Need For Compromise

ROGER C. KOSTMAYER

No one wants, nor should want, Senate Majority Leader McConnell to invoke the “nuclear option” that would change the rules for approving Supreme Court justices.  Doing so would change the requirement for approval from 60 votes, and some bipartisan support, to a simple majority of 51.  A simple majority means more divisiveness, more extreme candidates, less cooperation and compromise with the minority party, and increased politicization of the Supreme Court.  Clearly, this would be bad for our nation, for democracy and for both parties.  Catastrophically, the Senate would become more like the dysfunctional House.

How, then, can we get off this self-destructive collision course?  No one seems capable of stepping forward and offering to compromise for the good of all.  “Winners” usually have the responsibility to offer their hand first, and a magnanimous gesture should produce a response in kind.  It’s a very long shot in these difficult times, but there is a scenario that would avoid the train wreck, correct the proper order, and earn the flailing President some respect for protecting the historic Senate.

If the President acknowledged that both parties share the blame and that he would resubmit President Obama’s nominee, Judge Garland, who was denied the Constitutionally required “advise and consent” evaluation process – meetings and hearings to evaluate his qualifications and a vote requiring 60 yes votes. If Garland failed to get 60 votes, the President and Congressional leaders from both parties would then submit a nominee who could.

The country and the government could then move forward with a sense that the ship of state was righted, and a degree of tradition and fair play had been restored.

Roger C. Kostmayer

[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]