Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Thursday, December 12, 2024 81° Today's Paper


Top News

Cracks emerge in GOP refusal to consider Supreme Court pick

ASSOCIATED PRESS

President Barack Obama answers questions during a news conference following the conclusion of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders summit at the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, Calif.

WASHINGTON >> Concerted Republican opposition to considering President Barack Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court showed early signs of splintering on Wednesday as a handful of influential senators opened the door to a possible confirmation hearing. One Republican even suggested the president should nominate a candidate from his state.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, did not rule out a committee hearing on Obama’s forthcoming nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, went a step further and said she’d support such a move.

“I do believe that the nominee should get a hearing,” Murkowski, who’s running for re-election this fall, told reporters in Juneau, Alaska. “The question then becomes, we have a hearing on a nominee. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that that ends up in a vote.”

Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said chances of Senate approval were slim but added that Obama should “use this opportunity to put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda” on the high court.

“But should he decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows — maybe it’ll be a Nevadan,” Heller said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he opposes a filibuster to prevent a vote, as some Republicans have suggested. Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has said he’d wait to see who Obama selects before ruling out a hearing in his committee.

Those senators formed a cautious but growing chorus of voices breaking with the absolutist position of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has told the White House not to even bother nominating a candidate. The Kentucky Republican and several Republicans up for re-election have maintained that voters in November’s presidential election should have a say in the direction of the nation’s highest court.

Cornyn, McConnell’s deputy, agreed that it should be left to the next president to pick Scalia’s successor. Still, Cornyn said it was up to Grassley to decide whether to schedule a hearing, and to McConnell to decide on a full Senate vote if the Judiciary Committee were to vote on the nominee.

“It’s entirely up to the Senate whether to confirm that nomination, and I think we should not,” Cornyn said on Dallas radio station KSKY’s “The Mark Davis Show.”

McConnell has shown no signs of softening his opposition to confirming an Obama nominee, which could put vulnerable Republicans in a precarious position as his party works to keep control of the Senate in the November elections. But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid predicted Republicans would “cave in” and said he hoped Obama would announce a selection “in the next 10 days or so.”

Reid said he believes McConnell “has made a terrible mistake by saying that he is going to ignore the president.” He added: “The American people are going to make them pay if they jerk the president around on this.”

Wrangling over replacing Scalia came as preparations were ramping up to honor the conservative firebrand’s life and legacy on the court. The president and first lady Michelle Obama planned to pay their respects Friday when Scalia lies in repose at the Supreme Court, and Vice President Joe Biden was to attend Scalia’s funeral on Saturday.

Vowing to exercise his responsibility to pick Scalia’s successor, Obama has sought to turn GOP resistance into a case study in Washington dysfunction.

“The American people expect the Senate is going to show up and do their job even though they have a big election around the corner,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

Heller said people from Nevada “should have a voice in the process.” Among the names of potential candidates circulating in Washington corridors is Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval — a Republican who supports abortion rights — although it would be unusual for Obama to nominate a candidate from the opposite party.

The pace of judicial confirmations always slows in presidential election years, thanks to reluctance by the party out of power in the White House to give lifetime tenure to their opponents’ picks. In the past, lawmakers have sometimes informally agreed to halt hearings on lower court nominations during campaign season. But Obama has argued that “the Supreme Court’s different.”

If Republicans seem seriously amenable to holding confirmation hearings, Obama would have greater reason to name a “consensus candidate,” a moderate nominee that Republicans would be hard-pressed to reject. If there’s virtually no chance of Republicans bending, Obama might pick a nominee who galvanizes Democratic support and fires up interest groups in the election year.

If no replacement is confirmed, the Supreme Court will operate with eight justices — not just for the rest of this court term, but for most of the next one as well. High court terms begin in October, and the 80 or so cases argued in the course of a term typically are decided by early summer.

16 responses to “Cracks emerge in GOP refusal to consider Supreme Court pick”

  1. mikethenovice says:

    Democrats are for the people. Republicans are for Wall Street.

    • serious says:

      Mike, do your history, check Senator Joe Biden and Senator Obama on the Bork decisions. You mean Obama is for the people??? Please check why the Keystone Pipeline was negated—does Warren Buffet ring a bell???

      • Boots says:

        The Keysone pipeline was negated as oil has fallen drastically in price. Also now it is really not needed. Why expose so many’s water supply to contamination? Bet you think the governor of Michigan is doing a great job? lol

        • kuroiwaj says:

          Peter, Mr. Buffet owned all the trains hauling Canadian oil South and the pipeline hurts his business. Also, the Obama EPA approved the switching of water in Flint causing the Michigan’s EPA Director to resign.

      • airsumo says:

        Serious, you also need to know why 58 dems and 6 republicans voted against his nomination. Please read up on his actions dealing with jim crow era poll taxes, no banning of discrimination in public places and his vote against women.

      • seaborn says:

        The Keystone Pipeline would hardly benefit the U.S., and in the long run, would likely hurt the U.S. economy. It is also bad for landowners as eminent domain domain would be used to force the pipeline across private property. The pipeline would cross Native American lands, which they don’t want to happen, and there are many environmental negatives to the pipeline, also. The Keystone Pipeline is junk.

        • sarge22 says:

          The only thing stopping the pipeline is Obama and Warren Buffon. It will be built, help the economy and provide many jobs.

    • seaborn says:

      Mike is right. Democrats want affordabele health care for everyone, EPA regulations (they enjoy fresh air, clean water, etc.), women’s pay equality, health care and services for women, more funding for education, improved veteran benefits, affordable college education, etc. Republicans don’t have such a good record supporting such issues, but they do like tax breaks for corporations, and giving huge monies to the military.

    • GorillaSmith says:

      That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard since Hillary-Goldman-Sachs-Rodham-Clinton’s last rant to the effect that she’s not completely in Wall St.’s pocket.

  2. hywnsytl says:

    That is a very ignorant statement. There are alot of republicans who don’t even know where its located.

  3. Cellodad says:

    And a significant percentage of the electorate, both Republicrats and Democans, responded in a Dec. 2015 poll that the U.S. ought to bomb the non-existent country of Agrabah, an action that would presumably, make Disney’s cartoon character Aladdin and his genie both homeless. P.T Barnum was correct.

  4. justmyview371 says:

    We can’t turn over the Court to liberal Democrats.

  5. Newsizs says:

    Perfect example of why there should be term limits for Senate (and House). No sense of urgency to do their job because they’ve been there for years don’t care about public service. They will shut down the government if they don’t get what they want, just want to spite the other party. This applies to to both political parties.

  6. kuroiwaj says:

    There are no cracks in the U.S. Senate Republicans relating to the process of selecting a new Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  7. Larry01 says:

    “Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has said he’d wait to see who Obama selects before ruling out a hearing in his committee.”

    Oh, that’s so much different – let’s see if it’s someone I don’t like first, then see if we’ll be obstructionist to the Constitution.

Leave a Reply