Now that the U.S. Senate is back in session we are going to hear even more noise about the urgent need for senators to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Senator Chuck Schumer has been on talk shows accusing the Senate leadership of obstructionism. He even predicted that “this kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last.”

Some critics have pointed to the hypocrisy of his statements. After all, back in July 2007 Senator Schumer promised to block any Supreme Court nominee put forward by President George W. Bush. He rallied his fellow Democrats saying: “that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

The argument for waiting until the next election could also be summarized with one name: Judge Robert Bork. In 1987, the Democratic Party leadership brought out the rhetorical heavy artillery and vilified a qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. The lies and character assassination shocked political observers of both parties.

Confirming another liberal justice will merely guarantee a reliable liberal vote. The Wall Street Journal reminds us that: “Not since Byron White retired has any Democratic appointee broken with the liberal lockstep on issues that truly matter to the left.” By contrast, many Republican appointees like “Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts all broke with conservative political preferences on major legal issues.” From this statistical comparison, it is easy to see which side apparently makes up its mind before the high court even hears oral arguments.

These are just a few reasons why the U.S. Senate need not be in any rush to confirm someone to the Supreme Court.