SCOTUS Brief 3/28/2016
McClatchy: Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman once praised senator who pushed to block judicial nominees – Sen. Hatch in NY Times: Let Voters Decide the Court’s Future – Concerned groups respond to Hillary Clinton’s SCOTUS speech and back Sen. Grassley
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
1. McClatchy’s Anita Kumar writes that Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta once praised Sen. Robert Byrd for pushing to block judicial nominees.
McClatchy: Clinton campaign chair once praised senator who pushed to block judicial nominees
“In 2005, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd advocated that the Senate do exactly what Republican senators are doing right now and ignore the president’s judicial nominees. Byrd, who represented West Virginia for five decades and was the longest-serving senator until his death in 2010, made the remarks in a speech at the left-leaning Center for America Progress, where he was introduced by founder John Podesta, who went on to become the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. ‘Sen. Byrd is a legendary figure in the annals of the Senate and perhaps the greatest living exemplar of Senate history and tradition,’ Podesta said… Here’s what Byrd said when talking about President George W. Bush’s nominees: ‘There is no stipulation in the Constitution as to how the Senate is to express its advice or give its consent,’ he said. ‘President Bush incorrectly . . . maintains that each nominee for a federal judgeship is entitled to an up or down vote. The Constitution does not say that. I say the Constitution itself does not say that each nominee is entitled to an up or down vote. The Constitution doesn’t say that, it doesn’t even say that there has to be a vote with respect to the giving of its consent. The Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee simply by saying nothing and doing nothing.’ Sound familiar?”
2. Senator Orrin Hatch writes in the New York Times that since voters delivered different results in the 2012 and 2014 elections, it is “appropriate” for the voters to decide who makes the next Supreme Court appointment with their votes in the fall.
Sen. Hatch in the New York Times: Let Voters Decide the Court’s Future
“The president has consistently exceeded the scope of his legitimate constitutional authority, declaring that ‘where Congress won’t act, I will.’ One result has been a concerted effort by his administration to stretch the Constitution beyond its breaking point to advance Mr. Obama’s ideological objectives — from Obamacare and environmental regulation to immigration policy and gun control. The Senate, under Democratic leadership, was an accomplice in this effort, working to pack the federal courts with compliant judges and eliminate the threat of judicial checks on Mr. Obama’s executive unilateralism. Largely in reaction to such abuses, the American people elected a Republican Senate majority in 2014 to help restrain the president. Given that the American people have elected a president and a Senate majority with drastically different views on the nature of legitimate constitutional government — a split decision of sorts — it seems appropriate to let 2016 voters decide which of two very different paths the Supreme Court should take. But the American people can influence that course only if the Senate holds confirmation proceedings after the election season has ended. This should not be a controversial position.”
3. Concerned groups sent statements reacting to Hillary Clinton’s speech on the Supreme Court and to Senator Chuck Grassley’s continued stance that the people should be given a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice.
Tea Party Patriots:
“Grassroots activists in Iowa and across the country are thankful that Senator Grassley is standing up for their right to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice in the face of relentless attacks from Democrats and their liberal allies. Iowans understand that President Obama, Democrat politicians and their allies on the left will say anything in order to cement a liberal majority on the Supreme Court that will undermine our most cherished rights, like the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and defer to unaccountable bureaucrats at federal agencies like the IRS or EPA. Senator Grassley and any of his colleagues that stand up for the people’s right to have a say in the next Justice will receive the grateful support of the grassroots activists who work every day to improve our country.” – Tea Party Patriots CEO and co-founder Jenny Beth Martin
Tea Party Patriots delivered a letter to Senator Grassley from over 400 activists who live in Iowa thanking him for his principled stand and sent emails to their Iowa supporters encouraging them to call and thank Sen. Grassley and to attend his town halls this week to show their support.
Heritage Action for America:
“Hillary Clinton is attacking Senator Grassley because she wants to shift the Supreme Court dramatically to the left. Instead of ignoring the voice of the American people, Mrs. Clinton should ask voters if they want a Court that shreds their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or a Court that creates a constitutional right to partial birth abortion.
“Senator Grassley and his colleagues deserve credit for using their ‘Advice and Consent’ authority to ensure the American people’s voices are not ignored as they are in the process of selecting their next president. The next president — Republican or Democrat — should be in the position to fill the Court’s vacancy with the advise and consent of the Senate.” — Dan Holler, spokesman for Heritage Action for America
Judicial Crisis Network:
“Despite the fact that Hillary filibustered Justice Alito, she is now willing to say and do anything to create the most liberal Supreme Court in a generation. Like President Obama, Hillary wants a Supreme Court that follows her extreme political agenda — one that will distort the law and the Constitution to gut the Second Amendment, legalize extreme policies like partial birth abortion, and rubber-stamp the EPA’s war on coal.” – Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network and former Supreme Court clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas
Ethics and Public Policy Center:
“Hillary Clinton’s misguided attack on Senate Republicans shouldn’t distract voters from the grave damage that she would do to the Supreme Court and to the Constitution if she were elected president. A Supreme Court misshaped by Hillary Clinton would be the handmaiden of the Left. It would be hostile to free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and property rights and would look to foreign laws to eviscerate our constitutional protections. At the same time, a Hillary Court would invent constitutional rights — to partial-birth abortion, for example — that adopt and entrench the Left’s extremist policies.” – Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Writer at National Review’s Bench Memos and former Supreme Court clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia
Traditional Values Coalition
“The Biden Rule is clear: no hearings during elections. The Code of Federal Regulations is also clear as it pertains to the mishandling of electronic communications. The former is simply good manners, the latter comes with orange pantsuits. Senator Grassley is an honorable man who puts the concerns of Iowa first. The institutions of the United States Senate should not show favor or respect to partisan interests. So long as Clinton continues to play Washington-style politics, conservative stalwarts such as Sen. Grassley will stand tall for the rule of law. Right now, the Senate Judiciary Committee has their hands full uncovering the details of a scandal Clinton herself created. The added responsibility of confirming judicial appointments thankfully fall under a precedent established by Joe Biden himself. The American public can determine whether or not Hillary is simply sloppy or lying — but wishful musings on judicial nominations will not resolve Hillary’s distant and uncomfortable relationship with the truth.” – Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition President
