They've also tossed out number after number about how many justices have been confirmed during an election year (six since 1900), how many days lapsed in the longest confirmation process (125, for Louis Brandeis in 1916) and how many presidents have purposely left a seat vacant until after an election year (zero since 1900, according to SCOTUSblog).

AD

AD

But the simple truth amid all this squawking is that precedent shouldn't matter that much. Neither should which side gets hurt from the process, or which side could come away a winner. What matters is that this country's leaders prove they can do the most basic responsibilities of their job, and keep the most essential functions of the three branches of our government humming.

Imagine how bizarre this whole debate would seem in any other arena. No analogy is an exact fit -- few organizations have the checks-and-balances system of the U.S. government -- but it helps put into perspective the absurdity of letting one of the most important jobs in our country's government go unfilled, on purpose, for at least a year.

What if an NFL coach nearing retirement decided he wasn't going to replace a star player who died suddenly -- because he didn't know what strategy the next coach might take? Or if the chairman of a Fortune 500 board of directors decided its nominating committee wouldn't name a replacement for a key board member who died -- because the CEO was going to retire sometime soon?

AD

AD

Leadership, at its best, is a noble pursuit, one that includes the ability to inspire others to work toward some better version of the future. It involves persuading peers to find common ground, empowering others to do great work, setting out a vision of how to evolve and move forward, and creating an environment of principled compromise that can bring about change.

But at its most basic level, it requires doing the core responsibilities of the job that manage to keep the system running. It means filling vacancies, following rules and fulfilling job descriptions -- whether you like them or not. Only then can leaders be freed up to do the more difficult work of moving the country forward.

On this measure, Congress is failing. It has shut down the government once and threatened to do so several times more. Last year, it confirmed fewer federal and appeals court judges than in any year since the middle of last century, and it's far behind on many other nominations, too, writes The Post's Catherine Rampell. This is nothing new: ProPublica reported in 2013 that 68 presidential appointments were vacant at the end of Obama's first term, more than there were at the end of the first terms of the two presidents who preceded him.

AD

AD

Now, of course, they're threatening to obstruct the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice and prevent having a full slate in the high court for a year or longer. Shortly after Scalia's death was made public, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement that "the American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," noting that "therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Yet President Obama said on Saturday he planned to "fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time." Now the Senate should step up and do the same, deliberating over his choice. Lawmakers may very well choose to block whom he puts forward, deciding the person is not qualified, not a fair choice or not worthy of the job. That could still put the Supreme Court one justice down for a lengthy period of time. But that, at least, would mean they were actually doing their jobs.

Read also:

AD