Vermont’s two U.S. senators chastised their Republican colleagues Saturday night for suggesting that a successor to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia be appointed by the next president, not the current one.
“The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) soon after Scalia, 79, was confirmed dead at a Texas ranch.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who was campaigning for the presidency in Colorado as the news broke, called it the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote on confirmation.
“Let’s get on with it,” he said, according to a top spokesman.
Leahy’s and Sanders’ comments came as a deeply partisan fight broke out in Washington, D.C., over whether a president should nominate and the Senate should confirm a new justice in a presidential election year. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and a host of Republican presidential candidates said Saturday that they should not.
“They are certainly ignoring history,” Leahy told Seven Days in an interview Sunday morning.
Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, noted that the Senate unanimously approved President Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Justice Anthony Kennedy in February 1988 — fewer than nine months before the election to replace Reagan.
“Everybody was saying — Republicans and Democrats were saying — if you got a vacancy in the Supreme Court, it would be irresponsible for the president not to nominate somebody. It would be even more irresponsible for the U.S. Senate not to vote on the person,” Leahy recalled. “It bothers me if they’re saying, ‘OK, that works just fine with a Republican president, but not with a Democratic president.’ You can’t have it both ways.”
Leahy has voted on the confirmation of every sitting Supreme Court justice and chaired the Judiciary Committee during the two most recent confirmation fights: President Barack Obama’s appointment of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He lost the gavel in 2015 after Republicans took control of the Senate, but he will likely serve as his party’s spokesman during the looming battle.
Speaking Sunday in Vermont, Leahy said he was “glad” that Obama had made clear in a brief address Saturday night that he would nominate a successor in due course.
“The fact is, any president with almost a year left in his term who did not make a nomination would be derelict in their duty and would be open to criticism in history from then on,” Leahy said. “If the Senate did not have the courage to have the hearing and have a vote, then they’re derelict.”
As to Republican complaints that the Senate would not have sufficient time to properly vet a nominee, Leahy suggested that its leaders cancel scheduled recesses in order to “go back and have the hearings and then vote.” He said he suspected McConnell hoped to block such a vote because it could cause political headaches for incumbent Republicans facing reelection campaigns this fall.
“But if you want to be in the Senate, you gotta be willing to vote and let people know where you stand,” Leahy said. “If you’re not willing to do that, then go do something else.”
As Obama addressed Scalia’s death from Southern California, Sanders was speaking to a crowd of roughly 18,000 people at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, according to spokesman Michael Briggs. Later that night, he and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton weighed in on the matter during a Colorado Democratic Party dinner, also in Denver.
“It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of the Constitution of the United States,” Sanders said, according to the Washington Post. “Apparently they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that.”
Clinton struck a similar tone.
“It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail [have] already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates,” the Post reported her as saying.
Sanders elaborated on his position Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week.” He said that voters would not “look kindly on Republican actions to try to thwart what [Obama] is supposed to be able to do.” Sanders repeated his promise that, if elected, he would not nominate to the court anyone “who is not prepared to overturn [the] disastrous” Citizens United decision, which opened up the floodgates to corporate money in politics.
“I don’t think that Mitch McConnell has it right on this issue. The constitution is pretty clear and that is: It is the job of the President of the United States to appoint, nominate members to the Supreme Court, and the Senate confirms,” Sanders said. “President Obama, in my view, should make that nomination. I hope he does it as soon as possible. And I hope that the Senate confirms and begins deliberations as soon as possible.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Once again the GOP acts for partisan reasons, the USA be damned.
In 2006, when some Democratic senators were threatening to filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, McConnell thundered: “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.… [T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.’”
from http://www.thenation.com/article/mitch-mcc…
The whole article is worth a read.
“In 2006, when some Democratic senators were threatening to filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court nominee,”
I agree. The Republicans have no right to try to obstruct the President’s right and duty to nominate a Supreme Court justice. But why in 2006 were the Democrats “threatening to filibuster Bush’s nominee”?
It’s easy to tell the Republicans, do as we say, not as we do. But the truth is that the Democrats behave just as badly.
And so now the pattern is established: each party will attempt to block the other side’s judicial nominees, and their justification will be that “you did it to us.”
Some Democrats may have threatened to filibuster Bush’s choice…. but they didn’t do it.
Despite the fact that there were 42 votes against Alioto in the Senate in 2006, Democrats still refused to allow a filibuster, and the Senate voted on, and approved, Alito’s nomination.
John Roberts was approved 78-22.
Harriet Miers’ nomination was withdrawn because Republican Senators – not Democrats – told Bush that the GOP would reject her.
Even with earlier candidates who Democrats opposed (Bork, Rehnquist, Carswell, Haynesworth) they allowed the nomination to go forward. Hearings were held, committee votes were taken and reported to the floor, the nomination wasn’t filibustered, and they were sent to the floor for votes up or down. (Rehnquist approved twice despite Democratic opposition, the others rejected because of bipartisan opposition).
There is no precedent for what Republicans are saying they will do now — refusal to hold hearings, to even consider or bring up for a vote whoever Obama nominates (stated clearly before they even know who the nominee is).
The false equivalency game ignores the reality — the Democrats have never done what the Republicans are saying they will do now. Previous candidates were always granted hearings and up or down votes. The GOP should do the same — even if they oppose the nominee.
Yup blame everything on the Republicans..thats all the democrats know how to do..hell that’s all the democrats in Vermont knows what to do,,You know darn well who ever obumass nominates will be a butt kisser for him..As for obumass saying it’s the Constitutional thing to do is put another SC on the bench right away..what does he know about the Constitution, he has broken the Constitution since he took office.. Leahy and Sanders are up to something for them to want a replacement right away..There’s some questionable things about Scalia’s death,,and to say he died of natural causes over the phone without even seeing the body.. and he was found with a pillow over his face..mmm I would call for a investigation …
In 2007 Sen. Chuck Schumer publicly stated that the Dems should not allow Bush to have any Supreme Court nominations in the last year of his term. We didn’t get an opportunity to see if Schumer would carry out his threat but that’s exactly what he said.
So, no, this is not a “false equivalency.” Both parties behave like jerks when it comes to the other side’s judicial nominees. Nice partisan try, though.
Donna, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Mark Lade writes ‘In 2007 Sen. Chuck Schumer publicly stated that the Dems should not allow Bush to have any Supreme Court nominations in the last year of his term.”
Mark, Schumer said Dems shouldn’t CONFIRM any. He didn’t say they should refuse to do their constitutional duty to advise and consent.
Also, The Senate can’t prevent a President from making a nomination upon an opening in the Court. You probably just made a mistake on your wording, but your thinking seems muddled in general.
‘Schumer said Dems shouldn’t CONFIRM any. He didn’t say they should refuse to do their constitutional duty to advise and consent.”
Please explain how a Democrat senator declaring in advance that the Senate shouldn’t confirm any of the President’s judicial nominees, no matter who they are, because it’s the Republican president’s last year in office, is substantively different from a Republican senator saying that the sitting Democratic President shouldn’t make any nominees, because it’s his last year in office. You seem to be asserting a distinction without any meaningful difference whatsoever. Just to split hairs.
“Also, The Senate can’t prevent a President from making a nomination upon an opening in the Court.”
I never, ever said that the Senate could, or should, prevent a President (whether Democrat or Republican) from making a nomination. What I said is that the Dems seem to play the same deplorable games that the Republicans play. You seem to have a bit of a problem with reading. Plus the fact that you confused me with Mark Lade.