In fact, Democrats have ‘thrown every public relations tactic at the wall against the GOP’ as they attempt to circumvent the American people and reshape the Supreme Court with Obama’s partisan liberal nominee.
There’s a reason Democrats’ political stunts have failed, according to a range of legal scholars: The Republican majority is doing its job.
-
“So what gives Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the right to block Senate consideration of Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to the Supreme Court? The U.S. Constitution, say several congressional and legal scholars. Even dissenters acknowledge the Senate can pretty much do what it wants.” (William Douglas, “Scholars Agree: Senate Leaders Don’t Have To Consider Supreme Court Pick,” McClatchy, 4/14/16)
- “Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill constitutional law professor, says McConnell and Grassley’s position is bolstered by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states that the two chambers of Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – ‘may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.’ (William Douglas, “Scholars Agree: Senate Leaders Don’t Have To Consider Supreme Court Pick,” McClatchy, 4/14/16)
In a recent PennLive op-ed, Senator Pat Toomey outlined just what’s at stake – and the dire consequences if Obama is allowed to place his nominee on the court before American voters can cast their ballots:
-
“…the balance of the Supreme Court is at stake, and we have an election right around the corner. With lifetime tenure, the next justice will determine the Court’s balance for a generation. In that light, I believe it is sensible to allow the American people to participate in the choice of Justice Scalia’s successor less than seven months from now.” (Sen. Pat Toomey, “Here’s Why I’m Opposing Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court Nomination,” PennLive, 4/15/16)
- “Under our Constitution’s system of checks and balances, federal courts play an essential role in limiting executive abuses of power. This is especially important under the current Administration, which has repeatedly exceeded its legal authority….Garland has ruled on dozens of cases involving challenges to new EPA regulations, and has sided with the agency over 90% of the time…The stakes are too high for error, not only with the balance of the Supreme Court, but with the futures of Pennsylvania workers, farmers, and businesses.” (Sen. Pat Toomey, “Here’s Why I’m Opposing Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court Nomination,” PennLive, 4/15/16)
A wave of reports confirms that Democrats are running out of tactics to place Garland on the court before voters have a chance to speak:
Politico, 4/14/16: “Despite throwing every public-relations tactic at the wall against the GOP, Democrats have little to show so far for their weeks-long campaign to persuade Republican senators to promptly hold a hearing for Garland, who was nominated by Obama last month to replace the late Antonin Scalia.”
Politico, 4/13/16: “Merrick Garland’s Republican charm offensive is hitting a brick wall.”
The Washington Post, 4/14/16: "Democrats hit brick wall in Supreme Court fight…the Democrats’ toolbox appears to be emptying quickly."
The Washington Post, 4/4/16: "The all-out Democratic advocacy blitz during the two-week recess… has produced no discernible impact…"
CNN‘s Manu Raju, 4/5/16: "The Democratic pressure campaign isn’t yielding much in terms of results."
Democrats are running out of steam as they attempt to tip the balance of the Supreme Court in their favor for a generation – and their ‘politically convenient fairy tale’ just isn’t paying off.