SCOTUS Brief 5/10/2016
Morning Consult Poll: Sen. Chuck Grassley approval at 55% among Iowans – Sen. Grassley: Sorting myth from fact in the Supreme Court nomination battle – Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint: By withholding Garland hearings, Senate does its job
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
- In a week where pro-Garland liberals touted a partisan poll, a recent independent poll conducted by Morning Consult shows Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval at 55 percent among Iowans, with only 29 percent disapproval.
Morning Consult: The Most (And Least) Popular Senators in America
Iowa: Sen. Chuck Grassley – Approve: 55% Disapprove: 29% Don’t Know: 16% Margin of Error: 4%
- In a post for Medium, Senator Chuck Grassley separates the myths surrounding the Supreme Court nomination process from the facts.
Sen. Grassley: Debunking Supreme Court Myths
MYTH: ‘As the duly elected President of the United States, President Obama has the constitutional right to appoint judges.’
TRUTH: There are three steps for a new Supreme Court justice to be seated:
- “[The president] shall nominate [a prospective justice]…”
- “…by and with the advice and consent of the Senate…”
- “…[The president] shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court…”
A majority of United States Senators do not support moving forward with the confirmation process. The president does not have a right to appoint justices, merely to nominate them, just as he has done. The ability to appoint can only follow the advice and consent of the Senate, which has not been provided. As scholars have roundly pointed out, the Senate decides how it consents or withholds its consent.
MYTH: “The United States Senate isn’t doing its job.”
TRUTH: A recent Washington Post analysis gave this myth “three Pinocchios,” stating: “Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination.”
Both President Obama and the United States Senate are acting within the confines of their duties, according to Article II, Section II of the Constitution. One may agree or disagree with the president’s nomination for any number of reasons or one may agree or disagree with the Senate’s decision not to proceed on the nomination; however, neither the executive nor the legislative branch has neglected to do their job or fulfill any legal obligation. In fact, they both have done exactly what is constitutionally required.
Moreover, the Senate is hard at work, proving itself to be the most productive Congress in years.
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley has led significant bipartisan efforts on important legislation. There have been 27 bills approved by the Judiciary Committee under Grassley’s leadership. All of the bills have been approved with bipartisan support.
- In a piece for the Quad City Times of Iowa, Heritage Foundation President and former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint writes that the Senate is doing its job by withholding hearings on the Merrick Garland nomination.
Jim DeMint: By withholding Garland hearings, Senate does its job
“The Senate refuses to advance President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. And the man in the Oval Office is none too pleased about it. To force the issue, on Monday, Mr. Obama conducted a whirlwind ‘virtual media tour’ of six states — including Iowa — where White House advisers believe Republican senators might be pressured into calling for hearings on the nomination. According to him and his allies, senators who won’t rubber-stamp the nomination are somehow avoiding work, or in dereliction of duty. In fact, the Senate is doing its job perfectly, and doing right by the country…Fortunately, the Constitution also tells us exactly how judges are to be confirmed. Article II says that the president can only appoint a Supreme Court justice ‘by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.’ That means the president can pick anybody he wants. He can pick the head of Harvard Law School or his great-aunt Sally. And then the Senate gets to give its advice and consent — or withhold it — to ensure the right candidate gets through. Senators can hold hearings, or not hold hearings. It all depends on what they think is best for the country and the rule of law.”
