Over 100 Editorial Boards Call on Senate Republicans to Hold Supreme Court Hearings

Tuesday, March 29

New York Times Editorial: Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court If you tried to create the ideal moderate Supreme Court nominee in a laboratory, it would be hard to do better than Judge Merrick Garland. In nominating Judge Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month, President Obama has taken his constitutional duty seriously, choosing a deeply respected federal appellate judge with an outstanding intellect, an impeccable legal record, and the personal admiration of Republicans and Democrats. [3/16/16]


Washington Post Editorial: Dear GOP: Stop playing politics and give Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing The case against Mr. Garland — well, there is not much of a case against him. He is unusually well-respected across the ideological spectrum. He worked his way up in the Justice Department as a prosecutor, gaining respect for supervising terrorism cases, before joining the federal bench. He was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 76 to 23 in 1997, and several sitting senators should remember voting for him. One, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), was once quoted as calling him a “consensus nominee.” During his time on the D.C. Circuit, Mr. Garland has gained a reputation for thoughtfulness. He is an ideal nominee in these divided times. [3/16/16]


Bloomberg Editorial:Merrick Garland Deserves a Hearing There are at least two criteria on which to judge President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. First are his qualifications. Second is the ideological space that he would occupy on a polarized court in a polarized political environment. Garland is a superb choice on both counts. [3/16/16]


USA Today Editorial:Give Judge Garland a hearing: Our view Neither side comes to this fight with clean hands. But blocking consideration of a Supreme Court nominee, one who appears to have impeccable credentials and fall within the broad judicial mainstream, for almost an entire year will only invite similar retribution when the situation is reversed. Garland deserves better. The country deserves better.[3/16/16]


Los Angeles Times Editorial: Senate Republicans' refusal to consider Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination is dangerous obstructionism The stubborn refusal of Senate Republicans to consider any Supreme Court nominee offered by President Obama would be outrageous, regardless of whom the president selected to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia. But Obama's announcement Wednesday that he will nominate Merrick Garland, a moderate federal appeals court judge who has won bipartisan praise during a long and distinguished legal career, puts the Republicans' irresponsibility and cheap partisanship in even starker relief. [3/16/16]


AL – Anniston Star Editorial: Credentials of a worthy nominee In 2005 after John Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, this space noted he was a jurist with a keen intellect and an open mind. “This is a man who in the best traditions of the Supreme Court will grow on the job,” we wrote. We could say the same of Merrick B. Garland, the federal judge nominated by President Barack Obama on Wednesday to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. [3/16/16]


AR - Pine Bluff The Commercial Editorial: SCOTUS history against GOP In short, it’s time for the Republican party to grow up, suck it up and deal with the reality of Obama. The people have spoken. They twice voted to give Barack Obama the mantle of the presidency and all that entails, including the discretion to make nominations to federal positions. Why are Republican silencing those voices? Republicans like to wrap themselves in the Constitution when it suits their needs, but shed it just as quickly when they are rationalizing their own pursuits. [3/19/16]


AZ – The Arizona Republic Editorial: Montini: Upside down McCain flips (again) on Court nominee Maybe we should start calling John McCain the upside down senator? It's getting more and more difficult to keep up with the flip flops. When Merrick B. Garland was nominated to be a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 he was confirmed by a vote of 76-23. Seven of the Republicans who voted to confirm Garland are still in the senate. Among them is McCain. [3/16/16]


CA – San Jose Mercury News Editorial: Garland is superb court nominee Merrick Garland is a superb nomination by President Obama to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit is a moderate who is widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans for his integrity, judgment, intellect and basic decency. It would be a irresponsible for Republicans in the U.S. Senate to withhold consideration of Garland's nomination for strictly political reasons. [3/16/16]


CA – Ventura County Star Editorial: Republicans should not play politics with Supreme Court nominee President Barack Obama has named an eminently qualified and highly respected judge, Merrick Garland, as his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you read his background, if you look at the legal opinions he has written in the 18 years he has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, you will find him to be a good person with a great legal mind. He is a nominee that meets all of our criteria for someone who will raise the legal and intellectual level of the Supreme Court. [3/16/16]


CA – Press Democrat Editorial: Obama did his duty; the Senate should too By nominating Judge Merrick Garland to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Barack Obama fulfilled his constitutional obligation. It’s time for the U.S. Senate to do the same. Garland, the chief judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, deserves a confirmation hearing and a vote. [3/17/16]


CA – Fresno Bee Editorial: Obstructionist McConnell stiffs a qualified nominee It is, McConnell claimed, a matter of principle. It’s not. It is obstructionist politics at its base and gives voters yet more cause for disgust with the state of discourse in Washington. Senators are supposed to provide advice and consent. Rejection is a prerogative. But McConnell’s refusal to even meet with a qualified nominee and respected jurist drives the process further into dysfunction. [3/18/16]


CA – Sacramento Bee Editorial: Obstructionist McConnell stiffs a qualified nominee President Barack Obama fulfilled his constitutional obligation Wednesday by nominating an obviously well-qualified jurist to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reacted by restating his intransigent stand that the Republican-controlled Senate would not deign to meet with the nominee, Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Circuit Court for the D.C. circuit, the nation’s most prestigious appellate court. [3/16/16]


CA - Lompoc Record Editorial: Grinding gears of politics That argument crumbles in the face of reality. The American people already made such a choice, twice in fact, to elect and re-elect the person responsible for filling vacant court seats. Obama is fulfilling his responsibility as president, as many of his predecessors have done. If it had been a Republican in the White House the past seven years-plus, he or she would be doing just as Obama is doing. [3/19/16]


CA – La Opinion Editorial: The Senate should consider the nomination of Garland President Barack Obama fulfilled his duty to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court to replace the late Antonin Scalia. The Senate now has a constitutional duty to "advise and consent". This does not mean that he is obliged to accept the appointment of the White House, but it should consider, in this case do the hearings and vote on the nominee. [3/16/16]


CA – Contra Costa Times Editorial: Senate should act on Garland nomination It would be irresponsible for Republicans in the U.S. Senate to withhold consideration of Garland's nomination for strictly political reasons. Nearly 65 percent of Americans support the call for the U.S. Senate to hold hearings on the nomination. The failure to proceed only furthers the destructive gridlock that has sadly marked Congress' work during Obama's tenure in the Oval Office. [3/16/16]


CA – San Francisco Chronicle Editorial: Don’t play politics with Supreme Court nominee There’s no clearer road to choosing a Supreme Court justice. The president nominates and the Senate confirms or rejects the choice. It’s a well worn path that this nation of laws has followed for more than 200 years. [3/16/16]


CO – Denver Post Editorial: Senate should give Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing This is the final year of Obama's presidency and Republican senators have insisted they will not hold hearings on any nominee. Yet even if they stick to that pledge — and they likely will — the nomination of Merrick Garland ought to give them pause. It ought to give them pause if for no other reason than the fact that their party appears headed toward the potentially disastrous choice of Donald Trump as presidential nominee, a candidate who will be a difficult sell to the general electorate [3/16/16]


CT – The Day Editorial: Senate Republicans would be foolish to block Supreme Court nominee President Obama’s nomination of a judicial moderate to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia leaves the Republican leaders in the Senate with no justification to shirk their constitutional role to either deny or confirm the selection. [3/16/16]


DE – Delaware News Journal Editorial: Court obstructionism nothing but bluster Elected officials like McConnell and Vitter say they’re beholden to the best interests of the American people. If, through hearings, it emerged that Merrick Garland was not fit for the highest court in our land, we would be the first to thank legislators like McConnell and Vitter for shining a light on the President’s erroneous nomination. But, by refusing to do their jobs, McConnell, Vitter and the other obstructionists are serving only to get their names engraved on some sort of monument to bluster. [3/16/16]


FL – Miami Herald Editorial: Senators, do your job, act on Judge Merrick Garland Judge Garland is a sitting appeals court judge with a much admired record and a history of bipartisan support who has managed to win Senate approval for the bench while drawing virtually no criticism. Over the years, Republicans have praised his record and suitability for the bench. [3/16/16]


FL – Tampa Bay Times Editorial: U.S. Senate should hold hearings, vote on court pick President Barack Obama has fulfilled his constitutional obligation by nominating an experienced, well-regarded appeals court judge to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the Senate should do its job by holding hearings and voting on whether to confirm Judge Merrick Garland. Senate Republicans who continue to act as obstructionists and ignore the president's nomination for political reasons are eroding public confidence in the legal system and abdicating their constitutional responsibility. [3/16/16]


FL - Sun Sentinel Editorial: Fairly evaluate Supreme Court nominee — now Let's remind the Senate that there's another principle here — the principle of doing the job you were elected to do, the job you are paid to do. And part of that job is to fulfill the Senate's duty to advise and consent — or not consent, but at least debate — on presidential nominations for the Supreme Court. [3/16/16]


FL – Tampa Tribune Editorial: Senate misplays its hand Obama has boxed Senate President Mitch McConnell and his colleagues in with the nomination of Garland, a well-regarded moderate judge who is a strong law-and-order advocate. At 63 he is older than most court nominees, which looks to be a calculated concession to Republicans by Obama. Garland earned a reputation as an aggressive prosecutor and astutely supervised the Justice Department’s response to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing before being appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where his legal acumen is highly regarded[3/17/17]


FL - Ocala Star Banner Editorial: Court nominee deserves hearing With his choice of a nominee to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, President Obama gave Republican senators a golden opportunity to act in solidarity with the American people — a majority of whom want Washington to get over itself and move forward with filling the vacancy on the bench. [3/19/16]


FL – Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial: High court nominee deserves a hearing With his choice of a moderate nominee to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, President Obama gave Republican senators a golden opportunity to act in solidarity with the American people — a majority of whom want Washington to get over itself and move forward with filling the vacancy on the bench. [3/16/16]


FL – Daytona Beach News-Journal Editorial: Court nominee deserves Senate hearing President Obama on Wednesday made a shrewd pick for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court when he nominated Merrick B. Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Garland deserves a full hearing before the Senate Judicial Committee. [3/18/16]


GA - Ledger-Enquirer Editorial: Obama calls, raises GOP bet But a flat refusal even to consider any nominee — sight unseen, name unheard, credentials unknown — was a ratcheting up of partisan pettiness. The election-year rationalization that Americans “should have a say” is ethically feeble and transparently selective. [3/17/16]


IA – Cedar Rapids Gazette Editorial: Keep dirty politics out of Supreme Court nomination Grassley must publicly disavow the negative ad and the group responsible for it. … That Kelly was not ultimately nominated by Obama to the high court vacancy does not erase the fact that this organization needlessly sought to harm a dedicated public servant and obscure vital principles of our democracy. Even in the ethically questionable universe of political interest groups, it sets a foolhardy precedent. [3/19/16]


IA – Quad-City Times Editorial: Majority's voice ignored in SCOTUS stall Here's a number for you, Sen. Grassley: 816,429. That's how many Iowans preferred President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012. That's how many "voices" your utter obstructionism is silencing from your home state in the name of false principle and partisanship. [3/20/16]

IA – Daily Nonpareil Editorial: Our View: Grassley must allow Supreme Court nominee hearing
President Barack Obama has exercised his constitutional responsibility by nominating a judge, Merrick Garland, to the Supreme Court, following the death of Antonin Scalia. Now, it’s the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to hold a confirmation hearing to determine his fate. Unfortunately, Iowa’s own Sen. Chuck Grassley has once again put his foot down, declaring the Senate Republicans won’t hold a hearing, much less a vote. His willful insistence on leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court will, in essence, neuter the court for a year. [3/17/16]


IL - Chicago Tribune Editorial: Vote him up or down, but vote: Merrick Garland, on the merits In nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama on Wednesday praised the Illinois native as a judge "widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence." Over nearly two decades of service on a federal court of appeals, Garland has won nearly universal admiration. [3/16/16]


IL – Peoria Journal Star Editorial: Will GOP prove that judicial confirmation process is 'beyond repair'? It’s a shame that a fundamentally decent man is about to become a victim of indecent politics. By virtually all accounts, President Obama’s nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, is eminently qualified. A majority of Senate Republicans said so themselves in 1997 when he was confirmed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, where he has served since and now is the chief judge. Seven of those Republicans remain in the chamber, including Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who recently expressed his admiration for Garland in predicting — wrongly, as it turns out — that Obama would pick someone far more liberal. [3/16/16]


IL – Chicago Sun-Times Editorial: America can’t wait a year for a full-strength Supreme Court  The irony is that the system is working, if Republicans in the Senate would only show a little more respectfor the American Constitution. President Barack Obama on Wednesday nominated an ideologically centristjurist with impeccable credentials to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. [3/16/16]


IN – Herald Times Editorial: Our Opinion: Court nominee deserves full hearing, vote With all due respect to Indiana’s two U.S. Senators, Joe Donnelly is right and Dan Coats is wrong on fillingthe vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama on Wednesday announced his nomination ofFederal appeals court judge Merrick Brian Garland to fill the court’s vacancy caused by the death of SupremeCourt Justice Antonin Scalia. [3/17/16]


KS – Topeka Capital-Journal Editorial: Roberts, Moran have a duty to consider the president's Supreme Court nominee That is contained in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Since it was ratified 226 years ago, it has clearly outlined how U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and voted on by the Senate. But on Wednesday, both U.S. senators from Kansas announced they were no longer interested in abiding by those words. [3/17/16]


KS - Wichita Eagle (Rhonda Holman, Editorial Board): Don’t wait a year to fill Supreme Court opening The authority and obligations that come with the presidency apply all four years. That includes filling U.S. Supreme Court openings. So it’s disappointing that Senate Republicans aren’t even pretending to take seriously President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, the 63-year-old chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[3/17/16]


MA – Boston Globe Editorial: Merrick Garland deserves hearings and a vote Senators who have backed McConnell’s stance, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley and New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, also need to reconsider. Both are running for reelection in swing states. As it was, their refusal to consider Obama’s nominee was a disservice to their own constituents, who picked Obama in 2012. Now their failure to repudiate Trump, coupled with their insistence that the next president choose Scalia’s replacement, looks an awful lot like an endorsement of Trump’s fitness to pick the next justice. [3/17/16]


MA - Berskshire Eagle Editorial: Our Opinion: Do-nothing Republicans take pay under false pretenses In attempting to defend the indefensible following President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, the kind of safe, moderate choice Republicans would normally support, some congressional Republicans have claimed that Democrats would do the same if the situation was reversed. They don't know this to be true, of course, but if majority Senate Democrats did refuse to hold hearings for a Republican president's Court nominee they would be absolutely wrong in doing so. A speculated wrong doesn't make right the Republicans' grievous, unconstitutional wrong. [3/19/16]


MA – Berkshire Eagle Editorial: Our Opinion: Obama Supreme Court nominee puts heat on Republicans President Obama has done his job in nominating a respected, experienced centrist judge as the nation's 113th Supreme Court justice. Now it is up to Senate Republicans to do their job and give him a hearing. In nominating Merrick B. Garland, a well-known appeals court judge who is highly respected in Washington, the president has put the pressure squarely on the Republicans, who immediately politicized the death of Justice Antonin Scalia by declaring that they would not conduct hearings on the president's nominee, let alone take a vote. This would put them in clear violation of their responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution, a document Republicans claim to cherish except for when they find it inconvenient. [3/16/16]


MA – Boston Herald Editorial: High court gamble President Obama’s Supreme Court pick shows both a level of seriousness about the work of the court and the confirmation process — and his unerring political instinct in finding a nominee Republicans should be ashamed to deny a fair hearing. [3/17/16]


MA – The Republican Editorial: Obama's choice for court, Merrick Garland, deserves hearing in Senate: Editorial Voters had two opportunities to decide – in 2008 and again in 2012. And each time, they picked Obama. To give voters the benefit of the doubt and assume that most of them understand that presidents select nominees for the court, they've already made their call. The fact is, Republicans don't want Obama to name Scalia's successor. End of story. [3/17/16]


MA – Milford Daily News Editorial: Pick spotlights irresponsible obstructionism As President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the country's second-most powerful court, to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Republican leaders immediately accused the White House of playing politics. In fact, it is Republicans who are putting politics above their essential responsibilities. Garland should get confirmation hearings, and after those a straight up-or-down vote. Any political damage Republicans endure for refusing will be self-inflicted and well-deserved. [3/17/16]


MA – South Coast Today Editorial: Our View: Court vacancy could work against GOP Our position is that the Senate should follow the process. If the body can’t confirm Judge Garland, it is still an example of the checks and balances working. This disruptive campaign season has roiled the entire campaign process and it’s a shame that the court has been drawn in. From the perspective of the American people, the sooner the seat is filled, the better. [3/18/16]


MA – Lowell Sun Editorial: Make Obama blink -- weigh his justice pick So Republicans, why not call Obama's bluff? Hold those confirmation hearings, and if Judge Garland's record passes muster, endorse his appointment and let the full Senate decide. [3/18/16]


MD - Baltimore Sun Editorial: The man in the middle Are Republicans so determined to appear willful that they'd sacrifice a national election? President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, the widely-respected, centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, may be regarded as an apolitical choice — if only because the former federal prosecutor is hardly the dream pick of his party's progressive wing. But in reality, the political implications are substantial: Should Republicans fulfill their threat to not even hold hearings on the nominee, they demonstrate the party's true Achilles heel, an inability to compromise or put the nation's interests ahead of their own. [3/16/16]


MI –Detroit News Editorial: Senate should give Garland a hearing Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge with indisputable credentials and a reputation as a centrist, is as good as the Republican Senate can expect from a Democratic president. Actually, he’s much better than they expected. Sen. Orin Hatch, chair of the Judiciary Committee, just last week said Garland was the type of nominee Obama should submit, but predicted he wouldn’t. [3/16/16]


MN – Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial: Garland and the American people deserve a Senate hearing and vote Americans do have a voice: They elected Obama (twice), as well as members of the Judiciary Committee, and most voters no doubt trusted that their representatives would respect the importance of the nation’s highest federal court. But McConnell and his cohorts seem intent on disregarding the Constitution, however they may interpret it. Unless the political gamesmanship gives way to leadership, the weakened court could reach 4-4 decisions, setting no legal precedent, for a year or more. [3/16/16]


MN – Fergus Falls Journal Editorial: Supreme Court nominee deserves a hearing On the issue of President Barack Obama nominating a justice for the Supreme Court to replace conservative Antonin Scalia, we come down on the side of history. It’s preposterous to claim there is not precedence for a president to nominate a Supreme Court justice in the final year of his second term. [3/18/16]


MO - St. Louis Post Dispatch Editorial: Sen. Blunt should give Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing Obstructionist GOP senators are vowing to block President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Voters should watch closely whether Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt treats this nomination with the respect and seriousness it deserves or gives priority to partisan maneuvering. [3/16/16]


MO – Kansas City Star Editorial: Obama’s solid Supreme Court choice exposes GOP senators as obstructionist puppets President Barack Obama has acted in the spirit of compromise with his choice of Merrick B. Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Republicans will expose themselves as naked obstructionists if they refuse to follow suit and hold hearings. Garland is a universally respected centrist judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [3/16/16]


MT – Montana Standard Editorial: Daines, Zinke pander to politics with statements on Supreme Court nominee Sen. Steve Daines chose politics over doing his job when he marched in lockstep with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and pompously announced that he would not even meet with Merrick Garland, a centrist and a formidable legal scholar who has been almost universally praised for his judgment, hard work, judicial temperament and even-handedness. [3/18/16]


MT – Bozeman Daily Chronicle Editorial: Daines, Senate should consider court nominee Montana’s Republican Sen. Steve Daines can — and most certainly should — break from that lockstep of obstructionism and urge his colleagues to at least give the nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing and a floor vote. If Daines, or any other senators, find Garland to be poor choice for the high court, then they can vote against his confirmation. But they owe it to the American people to at least conduct hearings and articulate their reasons for rejecting the nominee. [3/20/16]


NC – Greensboro News & Record Editorial: Our Opinion: No, no, no, maybe It’s not far-fetched. Recent polls in North Carolina and other battleground states consistently show that most voters want the Senate to consider a Supreme Court nominee this year. Republicans like Tillis and Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina are defying public opinion for the sake of partisan obstructionism. Burr is running for re-election, and voters could punish him for his stubborn stance. [3/19/16]


NC - Charlotte Observer Editorial: High court pick deserves a fair hearing In Merrick Garland, President Obama has nominated an eminently qualified jurist for the nation’s highest court. As the well-respected chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – commonly called the nation’s second highest court – one could argue that Garland is the most qualified jurist Obama could have picked. [3/16/16]

NC – Raleigh News & Observer Editorial: Obama offers a worthy nominee, now Senate must do its job
Judge Merrick Garland, a Chicago native, qualifies on all counts and deserves to be confirmed by the United States Senate to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. That Garland might be denied not only a seat but even a hearing after his nomination by President Obama would be an outrage. It would be an affront not just to Obama, whom Republican leaders have vowed to stymie at every turn, but to the Constitution. The president is charged with filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, and Obama, with almost a year left in his term, is doing his duty. [3/16/16]


NE - Lincoln Journal Star Editorial: A worthy nominee for high court By nominating Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Barack Obama took firm command of the principled high ground in American governance. If Senate Republicans stick to their vow to not even hold hearings to consider his nomination they’ll set a new low for partisanship. [3/18/16]


NE – Omaha World-Herald Editorial: Senate’s past offers lesson The Constitution says presidents “shall nominate” Supreme Court justices, who are approved “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Yet Senate GOP leaders this year want to wait until after the November election and refuse to even meet with, much less vote on, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. … The important thing is to allow a vote to be held — regardless of whether the outcome is approval or disapproval. Otherwise, the Senate sends the disappointing message that it’s failed to learn a needed lesson from the recent past. [3/17/16]


NH – Concord Monitor Editorial: The game is clear, so let’s not pretend But Ayotte is no longer taking a stand for the American people, as she claims; she is blocking a hearing for a judge who is widely respected among Republicans and Democrats alike, and obstructing the proper function of the U.S. Supreme Court. [3/17/16]


NH – Keene Sentinel Editorial: Senate Republicans, do your job Ayotte has on occasion broken ranks with her party’s leadership. Not very often, but often enough to be of note, and almost always on issues in which party leaders’ positions ran contrary to those of New Hampshire’s business or environmental interests. This is an instance in which she needs to buck McConnell and call for action on the nomination of Garland. In actively choosing not to do her job, she runs the risk that, come November, voters will mimic Donald Trump, saying “You’re fired!” [3/17/16]


NJ – Star Ledger Editorial: Obama faces GOP hypocrisy over Supreme Court stonewall Republican leaders want us to believe they are blocking President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court for lofty reasons, for the sake of democracy itself. "Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy," says Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). "We should let the American people decide the direction of the court," says Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). Just one problem with this pitch: The American people did have a say. They elected Obama twice, knowing he would have the power to make these nominations. [3/17/16]


NJ – The Record Editorial: Obama’s nominee In putting forth Garland, the president is upholding the laws upon which this nation stands and the responsibility of the executive branch in our three-branch system of government. Now it is up to the Senate to do the same, to take its responsibility seriously and give this nominee a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote for confirmation. [3/17/16]


NM – Albuquerque Journal Editorial: Senate should conduct Supreme Court hearings But the bottom line is this: Senate Republicans who are in power have the opportunity to do what is right and show an already angry, distrustful population that we indeed are a nation of laws and that the judiciary can and should be above politics. [3/20/16]


NM – Sante Fe New Mexican Editorial:Our view: Senate needs to do its job Rather than pick a partisan liberal to incite the Republican Senate, Obama has done something almost surprising in this age of bickering and gridlock. On Wednesday, Obama announced that he is nominating Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland, without question, has outstanding legal credentials, although he must be held to the highest scrutiny — as is customary with any lifetime appointment. [3/16/17]


NY – New York Daily News Editorial: Merrick Garland deserves a hearing and a vote: President Obama has nominated a broadly respected, centrist jurist to the Supreme Court In flat-out rejecting within minutes to even consider the nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republicans are breaching their sworn duty, leaving the court with a vacancy for a year or more following Antonin Scalia’s death last month. [3/16/16]


NY – Buffalo News Editorial: Senate has a clear obligation to consider Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court It may be politically unpalatable for Republicans to consider a Democratic nominee to replace Scalia, but their obligation is clear: Garland deserves a vote. [3/16/16]


NY – El Diario Editorial: The Senate must consider Garland’s nomination President Barack Obama fulfilled his duty of nominating a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Now the Senate has the constitutional duty to “advise and consent.” This doesn’t mean that the Senate is required to accept the White House’s nomination, but it should take it into consideration—meaning, hold hearings and vote on the nominee. [3/16/16]


NY – Times Herald-Record Editorial: Give the nominee a hearing and a vote The president nominates, the proponents and opponents speak out, the Senate considers and votes and the nation gets to watch. As President Obama said so eloquently as he nominated Garland, those who lament the divisions so evident in the nation have a chance to help narrow them if they would only follow real precedent and reject partisan politics. [3/17/16]


NY – Newsday Editorial: GOP senators dishonor the Supreme Court and themselves The Senate should hold confirmation hearings and vote on the nomination. If Garland loses, then that, too, is how politics properly shapes the court. Instead, McConnell refuses to even meet Garland. Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, was more insulting. “I can barely schedule a call with my son’s math teacher yesterday, so probably no,” Blunt said. [3/16/16]


OH – Cincinnati Enquirer Editorial: Reject Supreme Court gridlock, senators President Obama nominated a moderate replacement last week in Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Enquirer editorial board urges Portman, who’s up for re-election, and McConnell to reconsider their opposition to hearings for this nominee who has previously received bipartisan support. [3/20/16]


OH – Toledo Blade Editorial: Give judge a hearing, vote If Senator Portman maintains his lockstep partisan obstructionism, Ohio voters will need to keep that in mind this Election Day. Polls suggest that most Ohioans want the high court vacancy filled this year. There is no reason to link a Senate vote to the outcome of the presidential election. [3/18/16]


OH – Columbus Dispatch Editorial: GOP blunders on nomination Senate Republicans, such as Ohio’s Rob Portman, have advanced the argument that the voters of the United States should decide who should be nominated to the Supreme Court through their vote for president in November. But that’s exactly the decision the voters made three Novembers ago when they elected Obama to a four-year term, which continues until January. [3/20/16]


OH – Star Beacon Editorial: Garland should get a hearing There is absolutely no reason for the Senate not to have hearings on Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated to the Supreme Court Wednesday.  Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, just last week essentially dared Obama to nominate Garland, saying the president “could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” under the assumption Obama was going to nominate an unconfirmable liberal rather than a well-respected jurist with bipartisan support. [3/17/16]


OR – Register-Guard Editorial: Garland deserves a vote Neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers mentions an election-­year exception — a point that ought to matter to admirers of Scalia, a leading proponent of the idea that government should adhere to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Senate Republicans’ problem is not with Garland, but with Obama. The Senate, including a majority of Republicans, confirmed Garland to the appeals court in 1997 by a 76-23 vote. [3/17/16]


OR - Albany Democrat-Herald Editorial: Senate GOP runs big risk over court Regardless of what you may think of Merrick Garland, the chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals chief judge who was nominated this week to the U.S. Supreme Court, you have to give him credit for taking on an unusually tough gig. [3/19/16]


OR – Statesman Journal Editorial: Winners, losers in the news Now the U.S. Senate should heed its constitutional obligation, hold hearings on Garland’s nomination, and either approve or reject him as the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice. [3/17/16]


PA – York Dispatch Editorial:Do your jobs Garland has long been equally praised by Republicans and Democrats. But building consensus in this contentious political climate of hardline partisan political entrenchment is the last thing that Republicans in the Senate appear to want. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his party overwhelmingly plan to deny confirmation hearings for any Supreme Court nominee put forth by Obama. Among those obstructing the process is Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey. [3/20/16]


PA – The Daily Item Editorial:‘The course of human events’ When in the course of human events the president has fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating a judge to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, it also is the constitutional duty of the U.S. Senate to meet with the nominee, hold hearings, deliberate and vote for or against confirmation. [3/18/16]


PA – Scranton Times-Triune Editorial: Toomey must do his job There is no valid reason, based on merit, to prevent Judge Garland from succeeding the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, having woefully failed in his stated objective of making Mr. Obama a one-term president, are trying to invalidate the last year of Mr. Obama’s second term by creating the longest Supreme Court vacancy in history. The Republican National Committee actually has established a “war room” to denigrate Judge Garland as if he were a political candidate. Expect a flurry of negative ads. Mr. Toomey should extract himself from this obstructionist strategy and exercise leadership in behalf of the country by advocating an open and honest confirmation process. [3/17/16]


PA - Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial: Politics wrong scale to weigh Obama, Christie nominees The stakes are too high to treat the appointment of a Supreme Court justice like a game of poker. Garland should be granted a fair hearing because that is the Senate's constitutional role in this process. Regardless of Obama's political motives, he has nominated someone who appears to be strongly suited for the position. [3/17/16]


PA – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial: Do your duty: The Senate must set a hearing for Judge Garland President Barack Obama did his duty under the Constitution by submitting to the Senate his nominee — Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate, despite its Republican leaders’ vow to do otherwise, must now perform its role and take up the appointment. [3/17/17]


PA - Daily Times Editorial: Obama Supreme Court nominee puts pressure on Republicans President Obama has done his job in nominating a respected, experienced centrist judge as the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice. Now it is up to Senate Republicans to do their job and give him a hearing. [3/17/16]


PA  - Citizens Voice Editorial:Worthy nominee deserves Senate consideration President Barack Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court of eminently qualified federal appellate Judge Merrick Garland is sound for the sake of the court. But it also further illuminates the blind political obstruction of Senate Republicans who have vowed to ignore any nomination. They include Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, who seeks re-election while belligerently refusing to do his job. [3/17/16]


SC – Post and Courier Editorial: Give Garland fair consideration Sen. Graham has previously emphasized that “elections have consequences” — including the power of those who win the presidency to nominate federal judges. And Sen. Graham has frequently emphasized the importance of the Senate giving presidential judicial nominees fair consideration. Judge Garland deserves that much. So does the Constitution. [3/17/16]


TN – Decatur Daily Editorial: GOP should quit stalling on High Court candidate's hearings The path forward for the Senate, and for the country, is to schedule hearings and weigh the merits of Merrick Garland to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court. That’s what the Constitution requires. [3/21/16]


TX – Houston Chronicle Editorial: Cornyn's next move "We need to get a fresh start." That's what U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said in 2005 when Democrats opposed President George W. Bush's judicial nominations. Today, as President Barack Obama nominates Merrick Garland to fill Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, we hope that Cornyn will take his own advice. [3/16/16]


TX - Dallas Morning News Editorial: Obama’s done his job, now it’s time for senators to do theirsPresident Barack Obama has done his duty and nominated a qualified federal judge to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Judge Merrick Garland deserves, as any reasonable nominee deserves, a full hearing and a vote. For the Republicans who control the Senate to do less is to shame themselves and the institution they represent. It is to neglect their duty, insult their president, and weaken this democracy’s faith in justice. It would ultimately weaken the very rule of law. [3/16/16]


TX – The Monitor Editorial: US Senate obligated to consider president's Supreme Court nominee In short, Obama is fulfilling his constitutional duty with Garland’s nomination and the Senate must fulfill its duty, as well. To refuse consideration of Garland is to abrogate a fundamental and constitutional Senate duty in favor of politics. [3/17/16]


TX – Star-Telegram Editorial: Senate slams a political door on court nominee Does the Constitution contemplate a popular vote as part of the process of filling a Supreme Court seat? No, and the Founders were quite deliberate in that decision. They constructed a court intended to be above the political fray, not subject to popular opinion that might be fleeting and not beholden to either of the other two branches of government. [3/17/16]


TX - San Antonio Express-News Editorial: Give high court nominee a hearing Now that President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick B. Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican senators should hold a fair confirmation hearing. And he merits an up-or-down vote. [3/18/16]


TX - Corpus Cristi Caller Times Editorial:Abbott, Cornyn, Cruz forsake the Constitution These three Texas Republicans have chosen fealty to a specific desired political outcome over loyalty to the Constitution. The Republicans simply don't want Obama or any Democrat to make that appointment and they are willing to contort the Constitution to do it. [3/20/16]


TX - The Monitor Editorial: US Senate obligated to consider president's Supreme Court nominee In short, Obama is fulfilling his constitutional duty with Garland’s nomination and the Senate must fulfill its duty, as well. To refuse consideration of Garland is to abrogate a fundamental and constitutional Senate duty in favor of politics. [3/17/16]


TX – The Eagle Editorial:Senate can't shirk its duty on the Merrick Garland nomination It's no wonder senators won't consider the nomination of Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court. They must be exhausted from shirking their duties. It takes a lot of effort to look like you are accomplishing something when, in fact, you aren't. [3/20/16]


TX - Brownsville The Herald Editorial: All at fault President Obama still has his job, and with regard to addressing the glaring vacancy on our nation’s highest court, he has done his job. Senators now need to do their job, and give the nomination the attention it deserves — and desperately needs. And both parties need to show more respect for the public’s need for an efficient system of justice, and stop playing games with judicial appointments. [3/20/16]


UT - Salt Lake Tribune Editorial: Obama not to blame for Supreme Court stalemate Clearly it is Republicans who have made the nomination process into a toxic, partisan firestorm. Utah's other senator, Mike Lee, has been more on the leading edge of this passive aggressive tactic. Hatch, who is plenty old enough to know better, should be the one to take his more hotheaded colleagues aside and counsel them to show some statesmanship, wait to see who the president nominates, have a hearing and then, if they find the candidate unsuitable, vote accordingly. [3/17/16]

VA – Richmond Times-Dispatch Editorial: Senate Republicans, do your job By all accounts, Garland is eminently qualified for the country’s highest court. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch even floated Garland’s name a few days ago: “The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate, but I don’t believe him,” Hatch said. “He could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man.” Hatch said he expected Obama would instead nominate someone more liberal. [3/16/17]


VA – Virginian-Pilot Editorial: Merrick Garland deserves a fair hearing BY ALL ACCOUNTS, Merrick Garland is a talented, experienced, moderate jurist, someone who would be an excellent addition to the U.S. Supreme Court. So it is nothing short of an indictment of today’s politics that he might not receive due consideration by the U.S. Senate. [3/18/16]


VT - Caledonian Record Editorial: Clear Voice In the current, toxic, political climate, we have no idea what will happen at the polls. But we do know that Americans get a “voice” every election cycle and most recently used it to say they wanted Obama. Since there’s a vacancy now, and he’s our President, he should get to fill the seat. The Senate should hold hearings straightaway and confirm Judge Garland. [3/20/16]


VT – Brattleboro Reformer Editorial: Our Opinion: Obama Supreme Court nominee puts heat on Republicans President Obama has done his job in nominating a respected, experienced centrist judge as the nation's 113th Supreme Court justice. Now it is up to Senate Republicans to do their job and give him a hearing. [3/17/16]


WA – Seattle T

Posted by Kombiz


There are no comments for this entry yet. Get the discussion started and post below.