SCOTUS Brief 3/16/2016
Washington Post: Nearly 200 years ago, Senate made clear it is not required to act on SCOTUS nomination – Roll Call: Conservative Groups Rally Behind GOP Senators – NYT: Judge Kelly Off Short List “Because of concerns that her roster of criminal defense clients could yield lines of attack”
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
- The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler writes in a “fact check” piece that the history of the Senate makes clear it is not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination.
“But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered…the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants…Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.”
- Roll Call’s Todd Ruger writes that conservative groups are rallying behind Republican Senator’s stance in the fight to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Roll Call: Conservatives Rally Behind GOP Senators in Supreme Court Fight
“A consortium of conservative leaders said in a letter Tuesday that they will take action to back Republican senators who took a ‘principled stand’ in refusing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee this year. More than 100 leaders signed the letter by the Conservative Action Project that will go to Republican senators and conservative advocacy groups, including Edwin Meese III, former attorney general in the Reagan administration, and Becky Norton Dunlop, a former Reagan adviser who is CAP chairwoman. ‘We are facing a national constitutional crisis,’ the letter states. ‘Senate Republicans have recognized the stakes and have acted accordingly. As conservatives, we strongly support them and their principled stand in favor of the Constitution.’”
- NY Times’ Julie Hirschfield Davis and Michael Shear write that the White House took Judge Jane Kelly off the short list over concerns about her record as a criminal defense attorney.
NY Times: Allies Say Obama’s Court Pick Is Near, and Will Be Hard for Republicans to Ignore
“Judge Jane L. Kelly, 51, a career public defender-turned appellate judge who attended law school with Mr. Obama and has been vetted by the White House, is said to have fallen lower on the president’s list in recent days because of concerns that her roster of criminal defense clients could yield lines of attack for Republican critics. The conservative Judicial Crisis Network said on Friday that it was running television advertisements attacking Judge Kelly for defending a child predator later convicted of murdering a 5-year-old girl. Republican-aligned groups were circulating reports Monday about her representation of a pipe bomber and a financial fraudster.”
- ICYMI: JCN’s Carrie Severino writes in National Review about why Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland are extreme liberals who will push the Supreme Court to the left.
The “Moderates” Are Not So Moderate: Sri Srinivasan
“Sitting D.C. Circuit judge Sri Srinivasan. Is he a ‘moderate’? Not according to his record…The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Srinivasan’s argument [in the Hosanna Tabor case]. Not one of the liberal justices came to Srinivasan’s defense…Last year the EPA issued new “Clean Power” regulations that pose an unprecedented economic threat to the American economy. Power companies sought a temporary stay of the regulations, since without a stay they would have to fire thousands of employees while waiting for the courts to rule. Yet Srinivasan voted to deny the request. The Supreme Court had to grant the stay, with all four liberal justices dissenting. The next time someone tells you Sri Srinivasan is a “moderate,” remember his ruling in the Clean Power Plan and his 9-0 loss in Hosanna-Tabor.”
The “Moderates” Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland
“Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court…Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years…Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners. That’s not so moderate, is it?”
