Federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland walks with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden from the Oval Office to the Rose Garden to be introduced as Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court at the White House on March 16. | AP Photo Editorial boards lash Republicans for blocking Obama on Supreme Court

Democrats have struggled to exploit the Supreme Court vacancy as a major rallying cry this election season. But as the Obama administration prepares to make a really-long-shot bid to win confirmation for Merrick Garland in the lame duck, it’s getting an assist from swing-state opinion pages.

Editorial boards across the country have lashed both current and prospective Republican senators for the actions of the likes of John McCain, who have not only stuck by their refusal to consider Obama’s nominee, but vowed to block any picks by a President Hillary Clinton.


“As the top body of the nation’s judicial system, it is too important to remain partially staffed,” wrote the Reno Gazette Journal on Oct. 25. “Multiple editorial board members felt that ending the continued barriers to approval of court nominees is a good reason to support [Catherine] Cortez Masto."

Beyond the Sun-Sentinel’s gripes with Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) stances on Obamacare and the minimum wage, the South Florida paper’s endorsement of Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.) to take his place cited the current Republican majority more broadly on the Supreme Court.

“If Clinton is elected and the GOP still runs the Senate, the country will have to endure a repeat of the obstructionism typified by the Senate's refusal to let President Barack Obama replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,” the board wrote, before noting that Rubio “did nothing to break the partisan gridlock” despite his stature as a presidential candidate.

Papers in North Carolina, including the Charlotte Observer and the Greensboro News & Record, hit Republican Sen. Richard Burr for blocking not only Garland, but also for opposing other Obama appointees, including a nominee to a federal court in the state and Attorney General Loretta Lynch (who’s from Greensboro). The Capital Broadcasting Company and the News & Observer also both cited the Garland nomination when they backed Burr’s challenger, Deborah Ross. And all four were published before a recording emerged last week of Burr saying he would block Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees, as well.

And then there’s Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley. Few Republicans have taken as much of a beating at home as the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, who is responsible for holding the line against holding hearings for Garland. It’s especially striking for Grassley, who had worked to cultivate a reputation for upholding the Senate’s bipartisan traditions over his decades in office.

He’s still expected to win re-election, but he’ll do it without the backing of the Quad City Times. Patty Judge didn’t earn the paper’s support, its headline said, “Grassley Lost It.”

The paper called the Garland block “an unforgivable act,” and added that even though Grassley is the “stronger” candidate, “his disrespect for the American voter and the Constitution is a conspicuous betrayal.”

The Des Moines Register went considerably easier on Grassley, supporting him for a seventh term based on his long record of service in Iowa, though it did excoriate him for his handling of the Garland nomination.

“The Nov. 8 election is not a referendum on the process of approving Supreme Court nominees,” the editorial board concludes. “It’s an election in which Grassley’s entire record of service needs to be considered.”

But the headline puts him on notice: “Grassley’s next six years should reflect bipartisanship of last 36.”