Halting Supreme Court nominee is a gamble

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had hardly sunk into our consciousness Saturday before Republican leaders and presidential candidates were proclaiming that President Obama should not be allowed to nominate a replacement for Scalia. The GOP-majority Senate, they said, must not approve anyone the president nominates.

But before Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and the others go too far down that road, they might want to consider what refusing to allow the constitutional nomination and consent process to take place might mean. There's an election in November, and none of the Band of Belligerents running for the GOP nomination have any assurance of prevailing against the Democratic nominee. Should the Senate refuse to allow a Supreme Court nomination by President Obama, in January they might find themselves confronted with a nominee from President H.R. Clinton or President Bernie Sanders.

Would a Clinton or Sanders nomination be more comfortable for the Republicans than an Obama nominee? Probably not. Although Obama has been the target of some of the angriest and most scurrilous attacks in recent American politics, he has usually sought to lean toward the center in his judicial appointments, selecting respected lower-court judges and law professors. Another Obama nominee would likely be less distressing to the GOP than the post-election alternative should the Democratic nominee win.

It has been rumored that President H.R. Clinton might appoint Barak Obama, a former law professor, to the Supreme Court. Or, alternatively, she might appoint another former president, a former Arkansas attorney general, to the high court. How would Cruz and Rubio like them apples?

This assumes that the Democrats will win the White House in November. There is close to a 50% chance that the Democratic nominee will win. If the Republican nominee prevails, the gamble on the court will have paid off, but at the expense of making it clear to already disillusioned voters that the Republicans care more about party politics than they care about continuity on the Supreme Court. Whoever a Republican president might nominate to replace Scalia will not be another Scalia, who was an extraordinary legal thinker who bent the trajectory of the Supreme Court over his three decades there. I dare say there is not another like him waiting in the wings.

Cruz and Trump and the evangelical vote

One of the most interesting things about this interesting election year is the popularity among evangelical Christians for candidates who talk about their Christian faith but don't demonstrate it.

Sen. Ted Cruz, who has made Christian activists a key to his election strategy, makes frequent mentions of the Bible and Christianity, but his tax returns show he doesn't put his money where his mouth is. It's not just that he gave less than 1 percent of his income to charity. He gave nothing ($00.00) to his home church, where he worships (but apparently doesn't read the Scripture or hear the sermon). He explained that he had concentrated his spending on securing the future for his family. How nice. He's investing in his daughters' future. Actually, he's demonstrating to his daughters and others his selfishness. With $5 million in income, he should be able to stash away enough to get his daughters through college, weddings and all that and still have a little left over to give to the church and the less fortunate.

Donald Trump, the boastful billionaire, has also touted his Christian faith, making appearances in churches and at Liberty University. But his reading at Liberty showed just how unfamiliar Trump is with the Scriptures. Given a "favorite" reading from II Corinthians, he told the audience he was reading from "Two Corinthians." Any kid in Bible school knows the accepted reference is to "Second Corinthians." Yet, this gaffe, like all of his other miscues, has not deterred his loyal fans who praise him as a godly man and shrewd businessman. It's probably true, as Trump boasted, that he could shoot down someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and he wouldn't lose any support.

Trump's "Two Corinthians" reading was reminiscent of 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's revealing response when he was asked what New Testament book was his favorite. He quickly replied "Job," which is in the Old Testament. The mistake revealed Dean, then the front-runner for the nomination, as someone severely lacking in biblical literacy.

Maybe biblical literacy doesn't matter anymore in this increasingly secular society, but the hypocrisy of candidates who woo Christian voters and claim to share their faith but neither practice that faith nor display any knowledge of that faith should turn truly religious voters away.

GOP candidates have their say

I stuck around for only the first half of the 10-candidate debate last night but still came away with some impressions.

Start with Donald Trump: Although he was still the bombastic, egotistical narcissist he's always been, Trump did not do as badly as he might have — meaning, he didn't punch any of his fellow candidates or the Fox News questioners (who didn't toss any softballs to him or the others). He didn't sound presidential, but most of the time he didn't sound like a lunatic. He even made an occasional valid point, and didn't deny that he often insults people (whom he considers to be beneath him).

Jeb Bush: Of all the candidates, he looked the most presidential. It helps if you're the tallest candidate in the room. He seemed reasonable and knowledgeable but didn't run away with the debate. Jeb took the "political dynasty" question and did as well as anyone could with it, i.e., "I am my own man. I am running on my own record." Etc.

Marco Rubio: His comment that "this election is about the future" might have been the best comment of the night, a comment that could resonate with younger voters (Rubio is 44). The comment averts questions about past GOP positions and policies, and it opens a clean slate. Rubio has an eloquence and a forceful delivery that gives a Kennedy-esque aura.

Ted Cruz: The Texas senator seems determined to come across as the meanest SOB on the stage. His facial expression seems fixed in a pugilistic mode, and he seems ready to take a punch at somebody, anybody, at any moment. He is the master of the sanctimonious put-down and the vague but forceful catch-phrase.

Mike Huckabee: The former Arkansas governor and TV personality is clearly older than four years ago, but his delivery and speech have been honed by his time on talk-TV. His assertion that "personhood" begins at conception, and the newly fertilized ovum is protected by the Fifth and 14th Amendments is astounding. No court decision has asserted such a sweeping conception (excuse the pun), but he wants to argue that a newly formed zygote has a DNA and therefore is protected by the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Rand Paul: Paul came across as feisty and a bit courageous in his willingness to challenge Trump. I wondered if the two might come to blows. While he fared well in defending his position on foreign aid, ISIS and domestic spying, his combativeness didn't seem presidential but rather Trump-ish. Paul's line about being tired of seeing ISIS troops riding around in a billion dollars worth of U.S. Humvees was memorable.

Chris Christie: Speaking of feisty. Christie couldn't seem to decide whether he should be belligerent or warm and fuzzy. He claimed that only he had the ability to challenge terrorists because he had prosecuted terror cases as a federal attorney. Paul got under his skin by reminding everyone of his hug of President Obama (after Superstorm Sandy), which Christie defended by veering off on his hugs to terrorist victim families. Non sequitur, Governor?