With Trump And SCOTUS, Do Qualifications Even Matter?

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the United States Senate don’t have much bad to say about Merrick Garland, the nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

In fact, most say Garland is supremely qualified. Nevertheless, they have decided to block his nomination, on the theory that the people should have a say by choosing the next president.

On the Republican side, that person who is the presumed nominee is Donald Trump . Finding Republicans who will to praise the billionaire’s qualifications is significantly harder than finding praise for Garland.

Which raises an interesting question: What does it say about whether qualifications matter anymore on Capitol Hill, even for two of the most consequential positions in the U.S. government?

Are qualifications important to Republicans who are blocking a qualified Supreme Court nominee so that their own dubiously qualified presidential nominee might have a chance to choose someone else?

The Huffington Post asked Republicans, who couldn’t seem to agree, although some were forthright in conceding the difficult logic of the situation.

“I don’t know what it says,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), adding, “I think that we’re in a very political environment. That’s the main reason for it.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who is taking the lead in blocking Garland and would customarily be leading the confirmation process, skipped over Garland’s qualifications to talk about the kind of person he expected President Donald Trump to nominate.

“I think that the qualifications are well answered by something that Trump said on one of the debates,” Grassley told HuffPost. “He said he would appoint people like Pryor and Fiske, or whatever the lady’s name is in Wisconsin, that type of person, to the Supreme Court -- strict constructionists, and that ought to satisfy anyone’s concerns.”

Grassley appeared to be referring to judges William Pryor and Diane Sykes. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is opposed to Trump and told reporters Tuesday he’d skip the presidential slot when he votes -- or write in someone else -- said he sees no real contradiction in refusing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy for more than a year, when Trump could wind up getting the chance.

“I think he [Garland] is a very good man. I think he’s qualified. Whether or not I’d vote for him or not depends on what kind of hearing we had,” said Graham, who maintains that the next president should fill the slot.

And, that next president doesn’t have to be all that qualified.

“All I can say about choosing the leader of the country -- there is nothing written about the qualifications, you’ve just got to be a certain age. You’ve got to be a natural-born American citizen and that’s it. So we’ll see.“

Although Republicans are deliberately making the court vacancy part of the election by leaving it for the next president, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) avoided the question of qualifications by noting that normally, White House nominees and Supreme Court nominees are chosen differently.

“Well, one’s an elected position and another’s an appointed position, or nominated -- a big difference,” Burr said, barely breaking stride.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) thought both parties’ presidential nominees were lacking in qualifications.

“Well, I got a lot of concerns about Hllary [Clinton] too,” Shelby said. “Both of them have big negatives.”

Nevertheless, he said he prefers to wait for voters to pick between those two lesser choices before acting on the well-qualified Garland.

“I think the people will determine if somebody’s qualified,” Shelby said.

Some of his colleagues had fewer doubts about Trump, suggesting that it's President Barack Obama who is unqualified to name a justice.

“Look at the guy’s who in the White House right now,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “What were his qualifications to be the leader of the free world? He was a community organizer. I think we see how that’s working out.”

Perdue allowed that he wanted to hear more about Trump’s policies, but he was ready to endorse and support his party’s standard bearer, and he was sure he’d be better than Clinton.

“With regard to the presidential, of course, credentials matter there,” Perdue said. “But we know Secretary Clinton, Sen. Clinton, has already told us that she’s going to double down on these policies of this president, which we know aren’t working.”

There are a couple of Republicans who want to hold hearings and a vote on Garland. One. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), was pretty certain he’d get confirmed if Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would allow the process to advance.

Still, Collins said she was loath to suggest her colleagues were being hypocritical in pushing for Trump -- a nominee about whom she has significant concerns -- while stalling the accomplished Garland, who has been effusively praised by both Republican and Democratic legal leaders. 

“I don’t think the two situations are equal in any sense,” Collins said, before explaining some of her problems with Trump.

"If he were looking to me for advice, which he’s not, I would tell him to stop using the phrase that [Clinton] is playing the women’s card. That demeans her experience and her accomplishments," Collins said.

"I have always supported the Republican nominee. I hope to be able to do so this time. But I need to hear more from Donald Trump on his vision for this country beyond his slogan, and he needs to articulate what a Trump presidency would look like," Collins added. "He also needs to knock off the gratuitous personal insults and to do a lot more outreach, including to the Muslim community."

Editor's note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar , rampant xenophobe , racist , misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.