Supreme Court Nomination Debate

In Depth: Supreme Court Nomination

Give the People a Voice

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy on the high court at a time of high tensions among the American electorate.

It is clear that our country is very divided and we are in the midst of an intensely contested presidential election. These are not appropriate conditions to be considering a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

In light of this, Senate Republicans are committed to giving the people a voice in the direction the court will take for generations to come.

I strongly disagree with President Obama's contention that the Senate must rubber-stamp his nominee in the final year of his presidency. However, I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable, which is why I accepted the request of the White House to meet with Judge Merrick Garland.

During our meeting I conveyed to Judge Garland my position, which is that the next president should fill the vacancy.

My position is firm. That means I will not advocate for hearings or a vote, nor will I support filling the vacancy with President Obama's pick after the election.

Constitution Clearly Defines Roles in the Appointment Process

The intent of our Founding Fathers is clear. The Constitution plainly states that the president “shall nominate, and by and with, the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint” judges. 

The Constitution requires the Senate to act only if it chooses to confirm a nomination. There are no constitutional requirements to hold hearings on any nominee simply because the president has chosen that individual.

In fact, Glenn Kessler, author of the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, used even stronger terms calling the Administration’s claim that the Senate must hold hearings “a politically convenient fairy tale.”

The President’s constitutional authority starts with nominating a candidate. It ends there as well. After that, it is up to the Senate to determine whether or not to proceed on filling the vacancy.

With this particular vacancy coming at a time of deep division in our country and during the final months of a presidency, Senate Republicans have made it clear that we do not intend move forward.

The claims that the Senate is abdicating its constitutional responsibilities by not holding hearings or a vote on the President’s nominee is nothing more than a fabricated talking point pushed out by the White House.

Debunking the #DoYourJob Myth

For the White House and Senate Democrats to claim the Senate must vote on this nominee is not only a display of constitutional ignorance, but highly hypocritical given their words and actions in previous election years and the precedent followed for decades in terms of considering Supreme Court vacancies during lame duck presidencies.

President Obama’s efforts to convince Americans that the Constitution requires the Senate to have a vote on his nominee, belie his own actions while he served in the Senate.

President Obama is the only president in U.S. history to have joined an attempted filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice.

In 2006, then-Senator Obama joined his Democratic colleagues in a failed effort to block Samuel Alito’s nomination to serve on the Supreme Court, despite saying on the Senate floor that he had “no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says the President now regrets “throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process.”

The fact remains that the White House’s “Do Your Job” public relations campaign carries little weight in light of the past actions President Obama and Senate Democrats have taken toward nominees. Worse yet, the hashtag reveals the President's disdain for the power of the job he once had. In President Obama's mind, the Senate exists to rubber-stamp his nominee. To him, anything less, and the chamber is not doing its job.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The role of the Senate when it comes to filling the judiciary is not to serve the will of the President. It was specifically designed to be a check on the executive branch's power, especially one that routinely attempts to undercut the other two branches of government. That is exactly why the American people elected a Republican majority to lead the Senate in 2014.

We intend to uphold our promise to the American people. We have advised the President that we will not consider a nominee he puts forward for the Supreme Court vacancy.

The American people should determine who fills this vacancy through the upcoming election. 

Additional Resources