But do it in a way that allows for the theoretical possibility that the Senate could confirm one of the president's nominees if the nominee is acceptable.
Smile. And remember how so many on the Left danced on Antonin Scalia's grave.
Do read all of Jonah's thoughts.
And let me add one: Hillary Clinton is ecstatic and would love it if the Republicans don't confirm a presidential nominee.
Not that this is a reason for Republicans to pass a bad nominee, but you must admit that a Republican refusal allows Hillary to go into Full Indignant Role in defense of the Obama administration to lessen the appeal from the left of Sanders; and it holds open the possibility that she could get that appointment in 2017 should she still believe she will win the presidency. So win-win for her.
UPDATE: Please enjoy the New York Times arguing that the Senate controlled by the other party has every right to decline to accept the nominee of a president for the Supreme Court.
Tip to The Corner.
UPDATE: Via Instapundit, Megan McArdle:
We can argue about who started this escalating tit-for-tat war over the court, but who cares? Both sides have been down in the trenches for some years now, and both sides fight dirty whenever they think it’s to their advantage. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.
If we want to stop this before the next Pyrrhic victory, the answer is not to whine about how awful the other party is; it’s to lower the stakes. Far too many people on every side want to do an end run around the legislation process by getting unelected judges to declare their particular concerns beyond the reach of legislators. Why bother tediously lobbying senators and representatives, when you can simply win the White House, appoint a few judges, and get them to transform your most ardent desires into untouchable rights?
Yes, this is something I've gone on about forever. Not everything is a federal issue and elevating every damn thing to this level makes it extremely important to control whatever federal centers of power control the outcome of the national debate.
You want less divisive political culture? Then stop making every issue--no matter how important it is to you--a federal issue.
UPDATE: Ignore Democrats with their new-found respect for deference to the president's choice:
It’s hard to swallow demands for deference from a party that for seven years has cheered Obama’s serial constitutional depredations: his rewriting the immigration laws by executive order (stayed by the courts); his reordering the energy economy by regulation (stayed by the courts); his enacting the nuclear deal with Iran, the most important treaty of this generation, without the required two-thirds of the Senate (by declaring it an executive agreement).
Minority Leader Harry Reid complains about the Senate violating precedent if it refuses a lame-duck nominee. This is rich. It is Reid who just two years ago overthrew all precedent by abolishing the filibuster for most judicial and high executive appointments. In the name of what grand constitutional principle did Reid resort to a parliamentary maneuver so precedent-shattering that it was called the nuclear option? None. He did it in order to pack the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia with liberals who would reliably deflect challenges to Obamacare.
Do read it all, as the expression goes.
Hold the line. If Seate Republicans won't hold here, where will they?
And of course, the Left likes to demonize and dehumanize decent people.