A few days ago, I went to the Howard County Bar Association’s memorial service for my friend Randy Hainlen. As is usually the case at these events, there were several memorial resolutions read into the court record. As is also typical, since lawyers are often politically active, there were multiple references to Randy’s affiliation with the Democrat party. The references were light-hearted, and caused more than a few titters and chuckles – which helped everyone get through an otherwise somber event.

It got me to thinking of some of the other courthouse characters no longer with us.

First, there was Dick Ellis. Dick was charged by the Indiana Supreme Court with interviewing this recent law school grad to ascertain whether or not I was of sufficient moral character to be admitted to the state bar. Boy, did he blow that one! The “interview” consisted primarily of Dick regaling me about the time, many years before, he “almost” was nominated to run for lieutenant governor on the Republican ticket.

There was Bob Whitehead, Democrat, first judge of the Howard County Court, just a self-described “poor country lawyer”—who could charm the false teeth out of your mouth before you even knew they were slipping.

Ralph Helms, county Republican Party chairman, political operative without equal. More than a few of us cut our political teeth trying to beat Ralph, but we rarely, if ever, succeeded. Even as he was cutting your throat, politically speaking, Ralph was a gentleman about it.

With old-school guys like these, and hopefully it is still the case with the current crop of practicing attorneys, there was respect and the political games pretty much stopped at the courthouse door.

Which is as it should be. Politics has no place in the administration of justice. The lady in the statue is blindfolded for a reason.

If this is as it should be in a county seat courthouse in the middle of the Indiana cornfields, should it not be even more the case when talking about the Supreme Court sitting in our nation’s capital?

The president of the United States, who holds office until Jan. 20, 2017, has done his constitutional duty and nominated a successor to the late Antonin Scalia. Under our Constitution, the responsibility passes to the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to the nomination. Or to give its advice and withhold the consent. But to do something.

Instead, the Senate majority leader has taken the position that the Senate majority will do nothing. No meetings. No hearings. No votes. No nothing.

I can think of plausible reasons to explain this obstructionist position.

It could simply be a matter of personal dislike. After the president’s first election victory, the same majority leader said his first priority was to make sure the president had only one term. The president was re-elected with a five-million vote cushion. To deny the president’s nominee a hearing and vote just to spite the president seems rather petty.

Or maybe it’s the reason most commonly cited—to give the American people a voice in the selection. The problem is that the American people had a voice in the selection back in 2012, when they confirmed this president’s mandate to be president—and exercise the full powers of that office for a full four-year term—with that same five-million vote cushion.

Perhaps it is as suggested by a letter written to the Tribune: “We the people put in place this Senate in 2014, two years after the president was re-elected. One of the reasons voters put this Senate majority in place was to stop or turn back what a clear majority saw as overreaches of power by the president and his pursuit of a far-left agenda the nation is not comfortable with.”

There are a couple of problems. First of all, the premise is factually incorrect. This Senate was not put in place in 2014. One third of the current membership was elected in that year. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the 2014 class priority over the Senate classes elected in 2012, or even 2010. As to the president’s agenda, that was pretty clear by 2012—and there remains that pesky five-million vote edge. Why not just suck it up, admit you lost in 2012, and go on to 2016?

Which brings us to perhaps the most cogent theory explaining the majority leader’s intransigence.

Voters in Republican primaries and caucuses seem intent on making Donald Trump the party’s nominee, despite the fact that he has a 60 percent disapproval rating, and, according to at least one poll, 27 percent of registered Republicans saying they could not vote for him under any circumstance.

Those numbers spell trouble for the Grand Old Party—and not only in the presidential race. Disillusionment over the top of the ticket could bleed over into races further down the ticket—such as Senate and House. In addition to Republicans voting Democrat, you have the even more likely possibility of Republicans being so disgusted with the Trump nomination that they simply stay home and don’t vote at all.

If the court nomination can be kept on the front burner as an issue through November, it might serve to keep those unhappy Republican faithful engaged in the election and willing to cast their votes. Whatever they do on Trump, they could be relied upon to vote for Republicans down the ticket.

The problem with all these scenarios is that they are political in nature. They are examples of the “inside the beltway” establishment manipulation this spring’s voters are rejecting—with good reason.

Keep it simple. Do your job. Have the hearing. Take the vote.

If you think the nominee is not acceptable, or if you think you might get a better deal from the next president, then vote the nominee down.

But for Pete’s sake, do something.