SCOTUS Brief 4/4/2016
Washington Post: Democrats’ “advocacy blitz” during recess “produced no discernible impact” – NY Times: GOP opposition to Merrick Garland “shored up by two Republican senators revoking their support for holding confirmation hearings” – McConnell Spokesman: After a month and a half campaign, Democrats have persuaded zero GOP Senators
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
- The Washington Post’s Mike DeBonis writes that the Democrats and liberals’ all-out “advocacy blitz” during the two week recess “produced no discernible impact” on getting the Senate to hold confirmation hearings on Merrick Garland.
Washington Post: Senate Republicans hold fast against Garland after two weeks of Democratic fury
“The Democratic activists pushing for the confirmation of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee measure their efforts by the numbers: more than 400 newspaper editorials, several dozen live protests and 1.5 million petition signatures urging Republican senators to take up Merrick Garland’s nomination. But this, too, can be measured: As of Monday, 52 senators oppose a hearing for Garland, let alone an up-or-down vote, before voters choose Obama’s successor in November. The all-out Democratic advocacy blitz during the two-week recess ending Monday has produced no discernible impact in the arena that really matters: the Senate Republican caucus. Only two of 54 Republican senators say they favor hearings. And two other senators who previously supported hearings reversed their positions under pressure from conservative activists, indicating that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has so far been extremely successful in holding together the Republican blockade.”
- The New York Times’ Emmarie Huetteman writes that two Republican senators reversed themselves and no longer support hearings for Merrick Garland.
New York Times: 2 Republican Senators Now Say No Need For Garland Hearings
“The wall of Republican opposition to the nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court has been shored up by two Republican senators revoking their support for holding confirmation hearings…As the White House heralds the growing number of Republicans agreeing to meet with Judge Garland, Senators Jerry Moran of Kansas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have reversed themselves and say they now back the decision made by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not to hold hearings…Republicans who have broken from party leaders have suffered blowback from conservative groups. Mr. Moran weathered particularly brutal attacks, with some threatening to back a last-minute primary challenger against him in his re-election bid.”
- Politico’s Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim quote Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s spokesman Don Stewart on the effectiveness of Democrats’ campaign to confirm Garland “None of our members have changed their mind on this principled decision. But the Dems have certainly unified our base in support of our principled decision.”
Politico: Democrats make halting progress in Supreme Court clash
“Republicans insist their Supreme Court strategy is very much intact, and will remain that way. ‘After a month-and-a-half of a Democrat political campaign, none of our members have changed their mind on this principled decision,’ said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ‘But the Dems have certainly unified our base in support of our principled decision.’”
- Judicial Crisis Network Chief Counsel Carrie Severino writes in the Daily Caller that liberal Justices are already flexing their muscles in Justice Scalia’s absence and should give Americans pause about what the Court will do with a liberal majority.
Carrie Severino in Daily Caller: The Gaping Hole Where Justice Scalia Used To Be
“Now that Justice Antonin Scalia is gone from the Supreme Court, the liberal justices have been giving us a preview of what the high court will be like if the Senate confirms President Obama’s nominee. Take careful note: They are already flexing their muscles. And that’s before they have a majority. There’s no question that the liberal justices have become much more active at oral argument than when Justice Scalia was on the court. Others have reported on the phenomenon, but I saw it firsthand on Wednesday, when the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious groups argued before the court in Zubik v. Burwell. Justice Breyer was his usual professorial self, but much more verbose than usual. Early in the Sisters’ argument, Justice Breyer asked a theoretical question that occupies nearly two pages of the transcript…In the old days, such philosophizing would have drawn a quick “Aren’t we supposed to be interpreting American law?” from Justice Scalia. Without the counterbalance, though, two of the other liberal justices joined in with vague observations on the nature of religious freedom more akin to political posturing than legal argument.”
