In a most unseemly and disrespectful move, almost before the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s body was cold, we had the spectacle of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, stating flatly that he will block any Supreme Court nominee submitted by this president —irrespective of who that nominee might be.

Shortly thereafter, his fellow senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio attempted to put some lipstick on the pig by citing an “informal” Senate rule that would prevent appointment and confirmation of a lifetime judicial appointment in a presidential year—the so-called “Thurmond Rule.”

Bull hockey on both counts.

In defending his past employer, a former McConnell chief of staff is quoted in the New York Times: “It was necessary. The suggestion that the American people should have a say here isn’t exactly risky ground to be on. … As for politics, if anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts. The liberal left will be as loud as they have ever been, but the reality is that the consternation will be confined to the activist left.”

I agree that the American people should have a say in this appointment; in fact, they already did. It is called a presidential election, and in the one that matters, this president won by a margin of five million votes. In percentage terms, that is 51.1 percent to Mitt Romney’s 47.2 percent. That’s a larger margin than George W. Bush in 2004 (51 percent to 48 percent)—never mind his Presidency-by-Supreme Court-intervention in 2000. It is even greater than what the sanctified Ronald Reagan achieved in 1980 (50.75 percent).

In fact, the sitting president is the first to win election twice by more than 50 percent since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.

The problem is, of course, that certain political figures, Mitch McConnell chief amongst them, have steadfastly refused to accept the decision of the American people for the past seven years. He should be among the last to talk about the American people “having a say,” having ignored what they had to say twice with unmistakable clarity.

It is true this president’s term has a little under a year to go. However, he was not elected to a partial term. Until Jan. 20, 2017, the president retains all of the power, and bears the burden of all the duties, specified in the Constitution. This includes Article II Section 2: “He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.”

This provision also infers a duty on the part of the Senate to take action to perform its constitutional duty to provide, or withhold its consent—not simply refuse to do anything.

On to the former staffer’s second supposition, that “the only consternation will be confined to the activist left.” This says the “great middle” of the American people don’t give a darn about this over-arching issue one way or the other – and won’t give a darn all the way to Election Day. Any politician who dismisses as irrelevant the “center of the electorate” that lies between the “radical right” and the “activist left” does so at their peril.

As to the “Thurmond Rule,” while Justice Scalia was not above contradicting himself ideologically when it suited his purposes, he took pride in being an “originalist.” This means adhering to the absolute letter of the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers. I suspect he would not take kindly to a position supporting abrogation of the clear language of the Constitution in favor of an ”informal rule” that hasn’t been consistently followed since ole Strom gave up the ghost.

Before and after the “Thurmond Rule” was voiced in 1968, appointments and confirmations have gone on. Some examples: In 1932, Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo. Despite Hoover’s defeat by Franklin Roosevelt, Cardozo was confirmed. In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, meaning Brennan went on the court without a confirmation hearing; the confirmation occurred later in Eisenhower’s second term. Current Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by Jimmy Carter to the appellate bench in 1980, after Ronald Reagan won the White House. In 1988, a Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy in an election year.

Speaking of the lower federal courts, from 1947 to 2014, according to the New York Times, there have been 79 appellate court nominations and 416 District Court nominations made in presidential election years. They may not have all been confirmed, but there were nominations made by the president and considered by the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.

Finally, it does not help Sen. McConnell’s case when he is on record—and on tape—in the well of the Senate arguing against application of the “Thurmond Rule” when it was Republican nominees he was attempting to shepherd through the confirmation process in 2008. When will these folks figure out cameras have long memories?

I believe the lipstick is sufficiently smeared.

So what then is this all about?  It’s about politics. Do the math.

The Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats this November, the Democrats only 10. Many observers predict that 10 of the GOP seats are “in play.” Democrats need to win just five of those races to regain control of the Senate, assuming they hold on to the seats they already have. Those 10 threatened GOP senators don’t want to have to take positions that might offend the hardcore Republican base and/or antagonize more moderate voters. McConnell’s current obstructionism saves them from decisions on at least one major issue. And McConnell can take the heat; he isn’t up for reelection!

This is high risk/high reward politics—but pure politics nevertheless. The gamble is that if the GOP retains the Senate, the current president is denied a political victory—which has pretty much been the common thread running through Republican strategy since 2008. Should the GOP pick up the White House, they could nominate and confirm someone who would preserve the current 5-4 conservative split that has been in place since the 1970s. Moreover, given the age of several of the remaining justices, odds are there will be multiple openings over the next four to eight years.

Of course, there is a downside that, given the shambles that is the Republican nomination process, Sen. McConnell and his fellow travelers might want to consider.

The GOP could lose the White House and/or lose control of the Senate.

Perhaps there is something to be said for pursuing a compromise nominee while there is leverage to do so.

The current president may be many things, but stupid he is not. While he might choose to be blatantly political and nominate one of those “left wing jurists” just to goad Sen. McConnell into apoplexy, it is more likely he would prefer to see a more moderate middle-of-the-road nominee actually confirmed. There is room to negotiate who that might be.

If the Republican candidate wins the White House, there will likely be ample opportunity to regain the hallowed conservative edge. If the candidate loses, the party is up the creek anyway.

There is another scenario.

The position remains unfilled. The Democrats regain control of the Senate and retain control of the White House. So now they are in a position to confirm the president’s nominee.

There will be available a newly unemployed former constitutional law professor and Nobel Laureate, of an appropriate age, with extensive experience in government at the national level.

Mr. Justice Barack Obama.  Has a certain ring to it, don’t you think?

Sleep well, Mitch.