Meet with the nominee, hold hearings, take a vote and let the results fall as they may.
That's Sen. Joe Manchin's stance on the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Manchin, D-W.Va., held a town hall meeting Thursday in Charleston to talk about the issue and to hear what constituents would like him to ask Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee for the court opening created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Manchin said he spoke with Garland on the phone on Tuesday, will meet with him in person on April 5 and will press him on issues of concern to West Virginians.
Most Republican senators, including Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., have said the Senate should not hold hearings or consider in any way Garland's nomination.
Manchin's town hall comes as a national conservative group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has begun an ad campaign targeting him for his willingness to consider Garland.
The campaign, which is spending $2 million in six states targets Garland on issues such as guns, abortion and federal environmental regulations. Judicial Crisis Network did not return a question about how much was being spent in West Virginia.
Manchin compared the nominee to Obama's recent nominee to run the federal Food and Drug Administration.
Manchin opposed the nominee, Dr. Robert Califf, for his ties to the pharmaceutical industry, but he was outvoted. The Democratic president nominated Califf and he met and was confirmed by the Republican Senate.
"The process, it did what it did," Manchin said. "Now, all of a sudden, Judge Scalia dies and for some reason we're not supposed to go through the same process we just exercised."
He stood in front of a blown up poster of Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says the president "shall" appoint justices to the court with the "advice and consent of the Senate."
"The Constitution's pretty clear," Manchin said, pointing to the poster. "That's his job and that's our job."
About 60 people attended the town hall, including gun rights advocates dressed in black and a Republican political operative, videotaping the event for potential use in future political use.
Speakers tended to back Manchin - wanting the process to play out - although plenty said they were opposed to any Obama nominee.
John Koch, of Charleston, told Manchin to oppose any Obama nominee, "until there's a truce in the war on coal.
"By not collaborating with the people making war against us, you could at least send a message that we don't go along," Koch said.
Robin Godfrey, also from Charleston, wondered why exactly a nominee from Obama was viewed as invalid by Senate Republicans.
"I wasn't aware that there was an amendment that shortened the president's term to three years," Godfrey said. "I think it's very important that we have this process go forward, whatever the decision is."
Several speakers lamented the politicization of the nomination process and urged Manchin to support Garland if he is deemed qualified, without attempting parsing his stance on every political issue.
"You should look at this man's record and go on that he's a fair and equitable man and let it proceed from there," said Pam Rhule, of Buffalo.
Manchin noted that Obama is "the most unpopular person in the state" but said the process should not be about who is president.
Capito has been steadfast with fellow Senate Republicans that the Senate should not consider or vote on anybody Obama nominates to the court, Garland included.
"I want to make sure that a lame duck president isn't making a permanent choice here, a lifetime position," she said in an interview Wednesday. "We're going to be having the voice of the people in November, whoever that next president is, Republican, Democrat, I'd like to see them make that choice in a less polarizing situation."
The Senate refusing to meet, hold hearings and vote on a Supreme Court nominee is without precedent in American history.
The longest wait between a Supreme Court nomination and a Senate vote was 125 days, before Justice Louis Brandeis was confirmed in 1916. There are 311 days from March 16, when Obama nominated Garland, to Jan. 20, 2017, the last day of Obama's term.
Capito referenced prior comments by Democratic leaders indicating they would be against confirming a justice near the end of a presidential term.
"There is precedent for people weighing in, from Vice President Biden to [Sen.] Chuck Schumer, to others," Capito said. "Saying that for the same reason, the highly polarizing atmosphere of a pending presidential election, creates an impossibility to get a good confirmation process."
Both Biden and Schumer, a leading Democratic senator from New York, indicated in past speeches that they would oppose court nominees from Republican presidents.
But, when their remarks are put in full context, neither Biden nor Schumer said they would not consider nominees from Republicans.
Instead, both urged the president to consider the views of the Senate when making nominations.
In June 1992, during the presidential election, Biden said that if there was an unexpected Supreme Court vacancy, "The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political season is over." But later in the very same speech, Biden, then chair of the Judiciary Committee, urged compromise and said he may support a nominee from President George H. W. Bush, as he had already done.
"Compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," Biden said. "If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."
Schumer, in 2007 remarks cited by Capito, similarly indicated a reluctance to confirm a hypothetical Supreme Court nominee of President George W. Bush. But he did not say the Senate should not consider a nominee, just that a nominee would have to prove his or her merits to the Senate.
"I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer said. "They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream, rather than we have to prove that they are not."
Manchin noted that neither Biden nor Schumer ever took action to stop the process in its tracks.
"They still went ahead and did the process," he said. "They never said 'I'm not going to talk to the person,' we never had that type of rhetoric at all."
Polling has shown that the electorate, so often fairly evenly split between the parties, is not split on what the Senate should do. Every recent public poll has shown that, at minimum, a plurality of respondents think the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Garland's nomination. Several polls have shown as many as two-thirds of respondents think the Senate should give Garland hearings.
Even in West Virginia, where Obama may in fact be one of the most unpopular people to state residents, a majority of respondents to a recent poll said the Senate should consider Obama's nominee.
Manchin encouraged West Virginians to go to his website to learn more about Garland and to send thoughts and concerns to a special email address he's set up, Supreme CourtNominee@Manchin.Senate.Gov.
Capito did hint, ever so slightly, that her position could change.
"We'll see what happens as we move through," she said. "It's March, or close to April. At this point, I think my position is - I don't think, I know - my position is that we wait until after the election."
Reach David Gutman at david.gutman@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5119 or follow @davidlgutman on Twitter.