General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama: Merrick Garland Deserves a Vote—For Democracy’s Sake
An oped in the WSJ
For more than 40 years, there has been an average of just over two months between a presidents nominating someone to the Supreme Court and that persons receiving a hearing in Congress. It has now been more than four months since I nominated Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuitand Congress left town for a seven-week recess without giving him a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote.
This is much more serious than your typical case of Washington dysfunction. And if we allow it to continue, the consequences of congressional inaction could weaken our most important institutions, erode public trust and undermine our democracy. Every Supreme Court nominee since 1875 who hasnt withdrawn from the process has received a hearing or a vote. Even when the nominee was controversial. Even when the Senate and the White House were held by different parties.
But Chief Judge Garland isnt controversial. He has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in our history. He is widely respected by people of both political parties as a man of experience, integrity and unimpeachable qualifications. The partisan decision of Senate Republicans to deny a hearing to a judge who has served his country with honor and dignity is not just an insult to a good manit is an unprecedented escalation of the stakes. It threatens the very process by which we nominate judges, regardless of who our next president is. And it should concern every American who cares about the rule of law and upholding the institutions that make our democracy work.
Heres why. Historically, when a president nominates a Supreme Court justiceregardless of when in the presidential term this occursthe Senate is obligated to act. Senators are free to vote their conscience. But they vote. Thats their job. If Republicans in the Senate refuse even to consider a nominee in the hopes of running out the clock until they can elect a president from their own party, so that he can nominate his own justice to the Supreme Court, then they will effectively nullify the ability of any president from the opposing party to make an appointment to the nations highest court. They would reduce the very functioning of the judicial branch of the government to another political leverage point.
(snip)
So heres an idea. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate could agree to give Chief Judge Garland a hearing when they return from their extended recess, while also committing to give every future qualified Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote within an established time frame. Its a good idea that my predecessor, President George W. Bush, suggested during his time in office. This reasonable proposal would prevent the confirmation process from breaking down beyond repair, and help restore good faith between the two parties.
More..
http://www.wsj.com/articles/merrick-garland-deserves-a-votefor-democracys-sake-1468797686
pampango
(24,692 posts)many other issues.
If republicans don't want a vote there won't be one. And many liberals agree that preventing a vote on an issue we don't like is effective politics.
question everything
(47,521 posts)No sure how clear it is about trade agreements and laws where, at least, these will be a debate.
With Garland, Obama wants at least an up and down vote.
maxsolomon
(33,384 posts)The process will start the day after Clinton wins.
At which point Obama should withdraw Garland and nominate Angela Davis. Fuck the Senate.