Let me elaborate on yesterday's post, on which three people commented. When Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to serve on the United States Supreme Court, I was a progressive. I despised Bork's jurisprudence, but I argued in print, for all the world to see, that Bork should be confirmed by the Senate. I continue to believe that the only test for a federal judge is competence. What is the point of an election if a president cannot shape the federal judiciary? It is outrageous that politics, ideology, or personality should play a role in the confirmation process.
If President Obama gets to nominate someone for the Supreme Court (he almost certainly will), I will defend his choice, provided the person in question is competent. The American people have spoken. They chose Obama not only to serve as commander in chief, but to choose federal judges. Will I be happy with the choice? Not likely. It could be Bill Clinton, for God's sake.
Another thing the American people chose Obama to do—perhaps the main thing—is guide the economy. I'm not suggesting that Republicans roll over, but they should not obstruct, either. President Obama should have at least two years to implement his ideas. He will be responsible for the results. If things don't improve, the American people will know it. They will associate the bad times with the president. Do you see what I'm saying? Let President Obama govern. Let him take control of the economy. If Republicans fight him every step of the way, the American people will blame them rather than Obama if the economy doesn't improve.
To summarize: There are two reasons why Republicans should stand aside. First, Obama deserves a chance to govern. He was elected fair and square, as hard as that may be for Republicans to accept. Second, it's in the interests of Republicans to let him fail.
