U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey recently wrote an op-ed to explain why he opposes Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination. Any senator has the right to oppose judicial nominations, but it is flatly irresponsible for Toomey to deny Garland a hearing or vote until the next president takes office in January 2017, or later. Toomey supports this long wait for the political goal of maintaining a conservative majority on the court, and that is unprecedented. It is bad enough that an eight-justice court cannot resolve the country’s hardest legal problems for a year or longer. However, the long-term impact of Toomey’s position for future nominees could be much more destructive. No Supreme Court nominee in history has been rejected – much less denied a hearing – simply because a Senate majority used its muscle to demand nominees that fit its ideological preference. Toomey’s op-ed described Garland as “a pleasant man with impressive legal training and experience.” “President Obama could have chosen dozens of nominees who would be more politically liberal than Garland, but no …