MINOT, N.D. — Republicans should let whoever serves next as president of the United States choose the replacement for recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It's the right thing to do.
Let the election be, in part, a referendum on who the American people want to make that appointment.
The partisan flames which have engulfed our nation hardly need more fuel.
The problem with this opinion is that those who feel contrary can argue, with something approaching near certainty, that if roles were reversed, and Democrats were clinging to the White House and a Senate majority ahead of a national election and had the opportunity to choose a replacement for, say, Justice Clarence Thomas, they wouldn't demur.
They'd pounce and fill that hugely consequential job opening with one of their own.
And Republicans, the very people who are now doing just that, would be screaming bloody murder, and perhaps making the same threats about court-packing and other forms of retaliation that Democrats are now.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is even talking about using the impeachment process to block President Donald Trump from appointing someone to replace Ginsburg.
These days governing in a manner that is contrary to one's ideological inclinations is a crime.
The popular thing among Democrats at this moment is to accuse Republicans of hypocrisy because they refused to vote on President Barack Obama's last Supreme Court nominee until after the 2016 election.
"Every GOP Senator who refused to give Garland a vote & now agrees to vote for a Trump SCOTUS nominee will forever be remembered as a monumental hypocrite," disgraced former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, who left office under a cloud of multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, wrote on Twitter.
Remember when Democrats, in the minority in the Senate at the time, used filibusters to block President George W. Bush's appointment of Judge Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, right after Bush was elected?
Internal memos from left-wing interest groups obtained by the Wall Street Journal called Estrada's appointment "especially dangerous" because "he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
Democrats blocked Estrada, in part, because they didn't want Republicans appointing the first Latino man to the U.S. Supreme Court.
American politics has been a spectacle in which hypocrites accuse one another of hypocrisy.
Again, the honorable thing to do would be to let the election decide who gets to appoint Ginsburg's replacement, but how does one go about being honorable when you are all but assured that your opponents won't reciprocate?
Partisanship has become an arms race, and neither side is going to disarm unilaterally.
What we're left with is escalation, and each new height of rancor reached further undermines the credibility of our political process, to the detriment of us all.
To comment on this article, visit www.sayanythingblog.com
Rob Port, founder of SayAnythingBlog.com, is a Forum Communications commentator. Reach him on Twitter at @robport or via email at email@example.com.