Senator Perdue & GOP Senate Judiciary Committee Members Tell McConnell They Will Withhold Consent On Obama SCOTUS Nomination
From a press release:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator David Perdue (R-GA), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicating that he will exercise his constitutional authority to withhold consent of any nominee submitted by President Barack Obama and the Senate Judiciary Committee will not hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee until the next President is sworn in.
The letter, signed by all Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, says, “The American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity.”
The Senators added, “Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017.”
The full text of the letter can be found below.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell,
As we write, we are in the midst of a great national debate over the course our country will take in the coming years. The Presidential election is well underway. Americans have already begun to cast their votes. As we mourn the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, and celebrate his life’s work, the American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity.
Over the last few days, much has been written about the constitutional power to fill Supreme Court vacancies, a great deal of it inaccurate. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the power to grant, or withhold, consent to such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate. This is not a difficult or novel constitutional question. As Minority Leader Harry Reid observed in 2005, “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.
Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
Orrin Hatch
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Jeff Flake
David Vitter
David Perdue
Thom Tillis
About Author
Charlie
Founder of GeorgiaPol.com; Now weekly columnist Very interested in Georgia and Georginas. Interest in politics is waning daily.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
And for those wondering, here is a quote from Senator Isakson on a SCOTUS confirmation:
“The American people are going to the polls in November to pick the next president, and I think the next president ought to be the one who fills that vacancy, not the one who’s on the way out. I’d like to see a Supreme Court justice who rules on the law and doesn’t try to make the law.” – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.
So does this mean we (both sides) can table beating the subject to death until next year ?
“…born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people…”
I’ve said it on this website before, but since you made it a posting of its own, I’ll say it again. This is a chicken$hit move by the Republicans, particularly those claiming President Obama should not even make an appointment for the Senate to consider. I have no use for Obama at all, but the “will of the American people” was indicated in the past two presidential elections. Both terms are of four years apiece, totaling eight years, not seven years and one month. It is most certainly Obama’s right, prerogative, and duty to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
However, what the Senate does with said nomination is an entirely different story.
I think that’s covered here:
As Minority Leader Harry Reid observed in 2005, “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
Thus, perhaps “the will of the American people” should be replaced by “karma is a b*&%h”, with videos of Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden each saying no nominees for a last term attached.
+1. Dems need to stop blubbering.
Charlie, I would argue it does. Advise and consent are not the same as do nothing. How does one advise or consent without hearings or a vote. Nobody is saying you must vote yes. Its called doing due diligence and it is established by law. Failing such is a blow to our form of government that these clowns dont seem to care about
Also, you of all people should know that taking quotes out of context isnt exactly the most honest way to discuss a topic, since all nominees for SCOTUS have been given votes by democrats. So if Harry Reid meant that he would not have allowed any votes. That a Mitch invention…dont be fooled. We are in new territory here.
P.S. This could also come back to bite them in the ass if the Dems take the Senate back in November.
Yes, it absolutely could. Can’t make it “about the election” without letting that election have consequences.
Personally, I’d rather Obama choose the next SC Justice than any of the current candidates. His previous choices were reasonable. But that’s just me. Also agree with Calypso that the voters chose this president for two 4 year terms and we don’t expect the government to stop for the entire last year. Of course, that presumes they were engaged in some activity to begin with. The constitution made the judicial branch the only branch whose members are not elected, in my opinion, for a reason. This isn’t about the will of the people.
Glad to see Republicans be candid with how little they care about the constitution. There’s obviously a magic line at which point a President loses the legitimacy for him to carry out his duties required by, you know, being elected President. Perhaps Republicans want to say when that happens?
This is crybaby-ism at it’s finest and that Democrats do it too isn’t much of an endorsement.
I won’t say anything about the ongoing obstructionism of gopers except to say that the bulk of Senators on that list are so far right they’ve wouldn’t recognize the center if it ran them down, which hopefully will happen one day.
Re Scalia’s death, they act as if he’s the first and last SC justice to ever die in office.
A few likely/possible outcomes, if the Republican Senators stick to this course:
*Even if a Republican President is elected in November, the Democrats in the Senate will have this stonewalling fresh in their minds and will filibuster any eventual SC nominee who can’t plausibly be called a moderate. So the center of the court will move left no matter what.
*As noted by others, vulnerable Republicans Senators will find themselves in even more trouble this year. The Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats in November, some of which flipped in 2010 — in an off-year election in the wake of a backlash to Obama policies.
*If Obama is able to get a judge like Sri Srinivasan — who was confirmed a few years ago 97-0 for the DC circuit and was praised by Ted Cruz — to accept a nomination to the court in this politically charged atmosphere, the Republican candidates for Congress and for President will all be hurt in states where voters have primarily moderate/liberal positions on social issues. At every turn, they’ll be asked not only about the decision generally but about the specific credentials of an obviously qualified nominee.
*For the next several election cycles, no President will be able to get a SCOTUS nomination confirmed in the final year of a term.
If we keep looking back to find reasons for doing the same stupid crap over and over again, we will never get out of this partisan rut. Yes certain prominent dems said and did stupid stuff, so did many on the GOP side. But do we want to remain in a constant state of Pee Wee Hermanesque ‘I know you are, but what am I’?
Obama is a disaster. But he is our disaster since the GOP failed to fulfill it’s push card promises or put forth adequate candidates to challenge him. Thus we are left to deal with this disaster. Let him nominate, hold hearings, then vote the nominee down. In the meantime, shut up and go back to whatever old stale pale males do when not trying to alter the constitution.
Obama will nominate someone that would promptly and readily be confirmed in usual circumstances.
Ed Lindsey recently did a great job calling for a choice being made. What say you, frequent commenters? Aye or nay, do you approve or disapprove of “withhold[ing] consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy”?
This could blow up the Senate as Mr. Pope has indicated, including the Presidential election. Most informed people other than Republicans—centrists, independents, swing voters, etc, even if they disapprove of Obama, and all Dems—will disapprove. I think many Republicans disapprove its categorical nature. It’s a demonstration of the direction that the GOP has gone, not even pretending.
This diminishes my respect for Grassley and Hatch. They’re run of the mill partisans.
PS – Yep Dems said some things. Politicians can help it. It’s the GOP that is doing it.
There is “advise and consent” and nothing. Those of you that think that is that same thing are really a lot more in your bubble of self justification than I would have thought. That people on this blog think this is outrageous says more than enough to me that its a bad strategy. My vote from 2012 should count despite those who claim to represent me (they dont). Its about time republicans stopped acting like petulant children and put their country and the Constitution they like to wave at any convenient moment first.
Oh, btw …8 of the 13 circuit courts are majority Democratic appointments…so if you want to leave it vacant for a year, you will lose way more cases and cause way more confusion than any appointment Obama would make. Then there are the strings of liberal decisions that will stand due to the 4-4 split, but who said these guys were smart. Perdue proves with overwhelming frequency he isnt.