Why can’t they get together and write some sort of document along the following lines?
We, the undersigned Senators, recognize that the Constitution authorizes the president to appoint Supreme Court justices, and gives the Senate the right to “advise and consent” in confirming said justices. As such, ideally, the only qualifications that would be appropriate for the Senate to examine, in a Supreme Court Nominee, would be whether or not he or she is capable of doing the job of being a Supreme Court Justice.
However, it has been our experience that Republican presidents nominees are not accorded this deference, and are instead asked pointed questions about how they would decide a given court case, or whether or not they believe certain cases decided by the court in the past, were decided correctly. This has created a situation where the nominees of Republican Presidents are evaluated based on their political views and with an eye specifically to the results in terms of decisions, of allowing them to serve on the US Supreme Court. Obviously, this situation is untenable going forward, as deference to one party but not the other leads to a preponderence of justices with approval from one party, but not the other.
Diversity is often held up as being a positive thing for our government, our culture, and the US Supreme Court. And yet, in just the recent past we have seen that judges appointed even to just Federal Appellate court positions have been blocked, held, or obstructed simply due to a partisan evaluation of their political views.
Therefore, we have agreed to the following: We will object to the political views of Democrat appointees, we will block their nominations, hold their appointments, and obstruct their progress until such time as our Democratic fellows in the Senate demonstrate appropriate deference and respect for the president’s authority to appoint and nominate those whom he wishes to serve, and such time as our Democrat fellows in the Senate demonstrate plainly that they do not merely object to Republican appointees out of spite, political disagreement, or out of concern that said appointees will reach decisions that our Democratic fellows disagree with.
How hard is that? Why cower away from coming out and letting the Democrats know that if they want to be jackasses, we’ll be jackasses back, but only as long as they do it? You have to know what the rules are in order to know that you’ve broken them, right? So the Democrats either don’t know the rules, and need to be educated, or they break the rules knowingly and Republicans need to let them know that it’ll be tit for tat until they come back into the fold.