The GOP's Planned Sabotage of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has nine seats.  That number was established by Congress way back in 1869.  Before then, Congress had set the number to be as low as six and as high as ten.  But now a nine-judgeship Supreme Court is the law of the land and will remain so unless Congress passes a new law to change it.

It’s basic civics that schoolchildren learn: The way to change a congressional statute is for both Houses of Congress to pass a bill changing the law and for the president to sign it (or have his or her veto overridden by Congress).  In a democratic nation governed by the rule of law, it is not acceptable for one political party to use obstruction of unprecedented proportions to nullify the law and impose its own contrary view on what the law should be without following the constitutionally-mandated process.

Yet that is exactly what the Republican Party has been doing since Justice Scalia’s unexpected death through their blockade of President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland.  For months, they said the next president should fill the vacancy.  But as polls have forecast a Hillary Clinton victory, their tune has changed.  Leading Republicans and conservatives are actually proposing to leave the current vacancy unfilled, but only if the American people vote to elect Hillary Clinton president in November.  Some are openly talking about not allowing any Clinton Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed for any additional vacancies.

If this sounds familiar, it may be because Senate Republicans tried this in 2013 when they sought to unilaterally change the law and impose an eight-seat cap on the 11-seat District of Columbia Circuit.  They (unsuccessfully) sought to prevent President Obama from filling any of three existing vacancies and restoring balance to what had been a far right D.C. Circuit court.  The current conflict and planned constitutional crisis represent a massive escalation by Mitch McConnell and all the GOP senators who take orders from him.

By amazing coincidence, the three oldest justices today are ones that conservatives revile, either because of their progressive record (Ginsburg and Breyer) or because of a small number of progressive decisions in an otherwise extremely conservative record (Kennedy).  The next oldest justice (the arch-conservative Clarence Thomas) is ten years younger than the youngest of those three.  So conservatives are seeking to use obstruction to de facto shrink the number of justices and thus control the ideology of the nation’s highest court, just as they tried and failed to do with the D.C. Circuit.  It is imperative that they fail again.

The American people have seen this type of political interference on an independently operating Supreme Court.  Back in 1937, Franklin Roosevelt introduced his infamous “court-packing” proposal, which asked Congress to create a new seat whenever a sitting justice reached 70 and didn’t retire (up to six such new seats).  The four conservative justices who most reliably found a fifth vote to strike down portions of the New Deal just happened to be over 70.  As a result, FDR’s proposal was widely seen—and condemned—as an effort to give him the power to quickly change the ideological balance of the Court.  Despite lopsided Democratic majorities in both houses, the proposal did not pass Congress, and it played a role in sharply reducing Roosevelt’s popularity and substantially diminishing the Democratic Party’s congressional majorities in the 1938 midterms.

Americans rejected FDR’s political interference with the Supreme Court, even though he sought to do it through properly-passed legislation.  Republicans’ “court-unpacking” scheme represents the same type of interference with the high court, but they plan to do it regardless of whether legislation is passed lowering the number of justices.  They are intending to act through obstruction, to prevent Congress from working rather than act consistently with the Constitution and the rule of law.

The GOP must pay a political price for this.  It is critical that this direct assault against the integrity of the Supreme Court and the rule of law not succeed.  Perhaps the most important way to stop it is to use our votes to ensure that Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress.

PFAW

SCOTUS Schedule Speaks a Thousand Words

Last Friday, the Supreme Court released its schedule of oral arguments for December.  Notably missing was a potentially far-reaching religious liberty case called Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, which has the potential to weaken church-state separation provisions in state constitutions.  As we stated in our September preview of the Court’s current term:

Notably, one of the highest profile cases on the docket so far was accepted for review before Justice Scalia passed away. The Court at that time had no reason to shy away from the religious liberty issues raised in Trinity Lutheran ChurchBut now, even though it has been fully briefed and is ahead of many other cases in line, the Court has not yet scheduled it for oral arguments. The Court appears to recognize that it simply can’t do its job in this case as long as Senate Republicans continue to force it to operate without its congressionally mandated ninth seat.

So it was disappointing but not surprising given the continuing vacancy on the Court  to see another month’s schedule of oral arguments skip over this case.  Moreover, the Court’s difficulties show up in other ways, too, as SCOTUSBlog’s Amy Howe noted late last Friday:

[T]he most interesting part of the December calendar may be what cases were not on the calendar: the three cases – Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley, Murr v. Wisconsin, and Microsoft Corporation v. Baker – that were granted in January of this year, before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Because cases are normally slotted for oral argument in at least roughly the order in which they were granted, the delay in scheduling these three cases is unusual. This is particularly true when all three cases have been fully briefed for over two months. Moreover, the court has four days in the December sitting which it will only hear one argument and could thus easily accommodate an additional three arguments. All of the cases on the December calendar were granted … in June; with the release of today’s calendar, all of the cases in which the court granted review before its summer recess have now been scheduled for oral argument except for the three January cases.

The Washington Post PowerPost column accurately called this “a bare-bones calendar.”

The justices are saying through their calendar what they would never say so bluntly: “We cannot perform our duties to decide certain important cases as long as the Republican-controlled Senate deliberately sabotages the Court.”

The senators certainly have a lot of important work to do after the election during the lame duck session.  Fair consideration and a vote on Merrick Garland should be the easiest.

PFAW Foundation

Demonstrators Send McCain Message That He Was "Too Little, Too Late" In Denouncing Trump

When Arizona Senator John McCain and Representative Ann Kirkpatrick took the stage on Monday night for their one and only debate, theirs weren't the only voices heard at PBS studios in Phoenix.

People For the American Way joined Planned Parenthood, ProgressNow, and other Arizona activists to send a clear message to Senator McCain: he jumped the Trump ship too little, too late.

In her remarks outside of the debate, Stacey Champion, PFAW's Arizona Campaign Organizer, pointed out just how dedicated to the Trump cause Senator McCain has been:

For over a year, Donald Trump has pushed racist, sexist, and bigoted attacks against far too many Americans -- and through it all, Sen. McCain continued to pledge to vote for him. He's made clear he stands with Trump and the extreme Republican Party, not Arizonans.

Senator McCain has been just as dedicated to blocking Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, and for the same disingenuous political reasons. As we noted on Tuesday, McCain’s "straight talk" on the Supreme Court exposes that his obstruction has never been about “the integrity of the Court” as he claimed, but rather about his desire to play politics with judicial nominations.

Shame on Senator McCain for not doing his job, and for waiting far too long to dump Trump.

PFAW

McCain's "Straight Talk" Exposes Real Reason for Blocking SCOTUS Nominee

Arizona Sen. John McCain cultivates an image of being a maverick who is straightforward and honest with people.  That’s why he called his old presidential campaign bus “the Straight Talk Express,” and now he’s running for reelection for his Senate seat.

But in a Monday night debate with his Democratic challenger Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, he revealed that he’s been anything but straight about why he refuses to consider Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.  Instead of the Straight Talk Express, he’s been taking his constituents for a ride on the “Duplicity Express.”

For the past eight months, McCain has justified his obstruction by claiming that the American people should have a voice in who fills the vacancy, via the 2016 presidential election.  He seems not to care that he was in fact muzzling the American people, who made a choice in 2012 to give Barack Obama that responsibility for another four years.  He claimed that “[t]his issue is not about any single nominee – it’s about the integrity of the Court.”

But at the debate, McCain revealed that his obstruction has everything to do with the identity of the nominee, and that he might even work to prevent the Court vacancy from being filled by the next president, should it be Hillary Clinton:

We only have eight Supreme Court justices, and I would much rather have eight Supreme Court justices than a [ninth] justice who is liberal …”

Whoa, what about his claim that this wasn’t about any particular nominee, but about “giving people a voice” so the next president can make the selection?

Imagine if, when McCain himself ran for president in 2008, he had stated that certain presidential powers and obligations last only three years rather than four:

  • In the third presidential debate in 2008, McCain would have answered a question about the Supreme Court by saying “I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench. Except during my last year in office.
  • In McCain’s concession speech, he would have noted that the American people had “decid[ed] that Sen. Obama and my old friend, Sen. Joe Biden, should have the honor of leading us for the next four years, except when it comes to the Supreme Court, where the American people have decided Obama and Biden should lead us for only three years.

Of course he didn’t say this.  That’s because he recognized then—and surely recognizes now—that the mandate given by the American people is for four years.

No, his refusal to consider Merrick Garland has everything to do with his dislike for the president who nominated him.  As he stated in 2008, McCain wants a justice like Scalia or Clarence Thomas.  He wants a justice who would:

  • Gut the Voting Rights Act and make voter suppression far easier (Shelby County)
  • Give corporations the right to make unlimited expenditures and contributions to influence elections (Citizens United)
  • Let corporations cite their religious beliefs as an excuse to deprive women of birth control (Hobby Lobby)
  • Refuse to recognize the equality and basic humanity of gays and lesbians (Obergefell, Windsor, Lawrence)
  • Find ways to rule in favor of the wealthy and powerful, regardless of what the law actually requires (too many cases to list)

Since Merrick Garland has given no indication he would be a conservative’s dream, Senator McCain is intent on preventing the Senate from even considering his nomination.  And if we have a President Hillary Clinton for the next four years, McCain has already said he prefers an 8-member Court to one with a nominee who he disagrees with.

How’s that for a principled, “straight talking” senator?  Refuse to move on the president’s nomination to the Supreme Court because you say the next president should decide, but what you really mean is don’t confirm this nominee because you’d rather have another Scalia on the bench.

PFAW

GOP's Record-Breaking SCOTUS Obstruction

A lot can be accomplished in 125 days.  It took less time than that for the Allies to liberate Paris after D-Day.  And Franklin Roosevelt’s first 100 days are still remembered for the incredible amount that was accomplished in such a short time.

So surely the United States Senate could manage to hold a hearing within 125 days for an unquestionably qualified, uncontroversial Supreme Court nominee with strong support from across the ideological spectrum.  But the Republicans who control the Senate have continued to simply pretend that President Obama hasn’t nominated anyone to fill the vacancy.  And at Day 125 of the nomination, the GOP has set a shameful record:  D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland is now the longest pending Supreme Court nominee in American history, and he still has not been allowed to have a committee hearing.

Of course, Senate Republicans can act quickly when they want to.  For instance, it was only a few hours after Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that, contrary to all precedent, the Senate would refuse to consider anyone nominated by President Obama to fill the vacancy, no matter who it might be.  This was at a time when there was still nearly a full year left in Obama’s presidency, so McConnell’s lightning-fast decision for obstruction and politicization guaranteed that the Court vacancy would remain open not only for the rest of that Supreme Court term, but also for most or even all of the following term as well.

Unfortunately, neither McConnell nor his fellow GOP senators seem to care about the damage an extended vacancy can do to a Court characterized by important and headline-grabbing 5-4 decisions.  These are analyzed in Material Harm to Our System of Justice: The Consequences of an Eight-Member Supreme Court, a report by our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation and the Constitutional Accountability Center.  Senate Republicans are unmoved that their unprecedented obstruction is politicizing what is supposed to be an apolitical institution.  They are not bothered that their unprecedented obstruction is harming their constituents and people and businesses across America.

But if they don’t care about harming the Constitution, the American judicial system, and their own constituents, maybe these GOP senators will care if it hurts them.  They should be concerned about the finding in a new polling memo out today from the Constitutional Responsibility Project and Hart Research.  The memo shows that:

  • As the GOP’s obstruction has dragged on, even more voters want a hearing than on the day he was nominated.  National surveys have all registered at least 60 percent in favor, with political independents and voters in battleground states with vulnerable Republican senators demonstrating comparable levels of support.
  • Nearly two-thirds of voters consider it to be “wrong” that Senate Republicans are refusing to hold hearings.
  • In battleground states, support for Garland’s nomination grows as voters learn more about his background and extensive qualifications.
  • At least seven out of ten voters think Republicans are playing politics with the Supreme Court, and a supermajority is convinced that the Senate is failing to fulfill its constitutional duty. No GOP framing to justify their obstruction is considered nearly as compelling.
  • In key battleground states, 40 percent or more of voters say that they are less likely to support incumbent senators because they are obstructing Chief Judge Garland’s nomination.  At the same time, most voters don’t seem to know what their own senator’s position is.  So when they find out, vulnerable GOP senators could find themselves even more vulnerable.

So on this record-breaking 125th day of the GOP’s refusal to do its job, let us hope that Senate Republicans will move to hold a hearing and vote on Judge Garland as soon as they return in September, even if it’s only to save their own skin.

PFAW

Garland Gets the ABA's Highest Possible Evaluation

The ABA has released its evaluation of Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, and – surprise! – he earned their highest possible rating:  Every member of the evaluation committee that combed through his record and talked to practitioners around the country agreed: Judge Garland is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

This isn’t a surprise.  We’ve known all along how incredibly well qualified he is.  But the ABA has put online a very detailed explanation of how they reached their conclusion.  For anyone who doubts that this is an excellent nomination, this ABA report is must-reading.

Integrity is essential in any judge, especially on the Supreme Court.  Not surprisingly, the committee heard amazing things about Judge Garland’s integrity.  Some sample quotes from the people the committee reached out to:

  • “Garland’s integrity is off the scales.”
  • “I do not know a finer person than Judge Garland. He is very solid, has the utmost integrity, and is a totally scrupulous, kind and generous person. It is hard to find a nicer person.”

As for his professional competence, the ABA panel was clearly extremely impressed.  Here is how they summarized what they heard from those who know best:

The unanimous consensus of everyone we interviewed was that Judge Garland is superbly competent to serve on the United States Supreme Court. This significant point warrants repeating:  all of the experienced, dedicated, and knowledgeable sitting judges, several former solicitor generals from both political parties, legal scholars from top law schools across the country, and lawyers who have worked with or against the nominee in private practice, government or within the judiciary describe the nominee as outstanding in all respects and cite specific evidence in support of that view.

When you read that paragraph, you can almost hear the ABA members saying “Wow!”

Regardless of judicial or political ideology, everyone wholeheartedly agrees that Judge Garland is supremely well qualified.

Unfortunately, there is one holdout group that is putting politics about all else: Senate Republicans, who still refuse to even hold a confirmation hearing for the nominee.

So while the ABA gives Judge Garland its highest possible rating, Senate Republicans are giving him the finger.  And it’s the American people who lose.

PFAW

Criticism Mounts for Senate GOP Obstruction of Judges

Perhaps the most vital role the United States Constitution assigns to the Senate is the vetting of federal judicial nominees.  An efficient and independent judiciary is vital to those seeking to vindicate their legal rights.  It is also vital to maintaining the separation of powers, which the Founders recognized as a cornerstone of our freedom.

Yet Republicans have done everything in their power to obstruct all of President Obama’s judicial nominees.  Since they’ve taken control of the Senate, Republicans have used their enhanced power to slow down the confirmation rate to historic lows. And by blockading a Supreme Court nominee regardless of his qualifications, they have drawn more attention recently to how they’ve been sabotaging the confirmation process for federal judges at all levels.

Today’s New York Times has a devastating editorial – The Senate’s Confirmation Shutdown – detailing the obstruction.  Beginning with the most prominent example – the refusal to allow President Obama to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, regardless of the nominee’s qualifications – the editorial sets out a powerful indictment of how the Senate GOP has used its control of the chamber to keep federal courts around the country understaffed:

 This has been enormously damaging to the district courts, which deal with hundreds of thousands of cases annually, and where backlogs drag out lawsuits and delay justice. It also harms the appeals courts, whose rulings are the final word in nearly all litigation, since the Supreme Court hears only about 75 cases a year.

 How bad has it gotten? Compare the current Senate’s abysmal record with the Democratic-led Senate that President George W. Bush faced in the last two years of his administration. By June 2008, the Senate had approved 46 of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees; they confirmed a total of 68 by September. In contrast, Mr. McConnell’s Senate has confirmed only 20 of Mr. Obama’s judges since Republicans took control in January 2015, the slowest pace since the early 1950s. Appellate judges accounted for just two of those confirmations, fewer than at any time since the 19th century.

Those twenty confirmations during the past year-and-a-half include two for the Court of International Trade.  The other 18 are for district and circuit courts, fewer than the number of post offices they’ve renamed so far this Congress.

The result is a substantial increase in the number of vacancies since the GOP took over the Senate, with the number of judicial emergencies (vacancies with overwhelming backlogs that impede access to justice) skyrocketing to 2½ times what it was at the beginning of this Congress.  The Times continues:

It would be easy to fill most of these vacancies if the Senate did its job. Currently, 37 of Mr. Obama’s nominees remain bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee, 30 of whom are still waiting for their hearing; 17 more have been approved by the committee but have not been scheduled for a full Senate vote. To make matters worse, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said he will shut down the confirmation process, such as it is, before the presidential nominating conventions in July.

Not mincing words, the Times editorial calls this behavior “disgraceful and disgusting,” warning that Senate Republicans “should not be surprised if, come November, the voters choose representatives who actually do their job.”

Indeed, the message Senate Republicans are hearing from Americans is to #DoYourJob.

They could start by holding a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.  They could also stop delaying committee votes on nominees like Don Schott for the Seventh Circuit (whose vote today was delayed simply because committee Republicans could delay it).  They could hold hearings for qualified circuit court nominees like California’s Lucy Koh for the Ninth Circuit and North Dakota’s Jennifer Kelmetsrud Puhl for the Eighth Circuit, both of whom have the support of their home state senators.  Republicans could also stop blocking hearings for Indiana’s Myra Selby for the Seventh Circuit, Alabama’s Abdul Kallon for the Eleventh Circuit, Kentucky’s Lisabeth Tabor Hughes for the Sixth Circuit, and Pennsylvania’s Rebecca Haywood for the Third Circuit, all of whom are currently facing obstruction by Republican home state senators who simply want to prevent President Obama from filling these vacancies.

Whether it’s the Supreme Court, the circuit courts, or the district courts, Senate Republicans are keeping as many vacancies open for as long as possible, so that they can be filled by a President Donald Trump, whose racist comments about judicial qualifications and whose attacks on judicial independence should, in a sane party, disqualify him from being given the power to nominate judges at all.

PFAW

New Campaign Slogan for Pat Toomey?

Last month, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put on a great dog-and-pony show to make it look like Toomey was working to get his home-state nominees confirmed.  This afternoon, Toomey had a chance to really support those nominees, and he was – surprise! – missing in action.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren asked for unanimous consent for the Senate to vote to confirm all 15 federal district court nominees pending on the Senate floor.  Most have been waiting for more than four months since committee approval for a floor vote, including two from Pennsylvania who were jointly recommended by Sens. Toomey and Bob Casey.  In fact, six of the nominees have been waiting for a vote since last year!

McConnell objected.  Toomey was nowhere to be found to stand up for his nominees, who would fill vacancies that have been open since August and September of 2013.

Then Sen. Warren sought unanimous consent to vote on a smaller list, one that still included the Pennsylvania nominees.  And once again, McConnell objected, and Toomey was nowhere to be found.

(Warren then tried with only four non-Pennsylvania nominees, then only one, but her efforts were nevertheless shot down, this time by Republican Orrin Hatch.)

This would have been a great opportunity for Toomey to stand up to his party boss and demand a vote for his nominees, who were fully vetted and approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee way back in January.  As a member of the majority party, Toomey’s requests would presumably carry more weight with McConnell than Casey’s.  But we’ll never know, because Toomey would not publicly stand up against McConnell.

This is sadly reminiscent of Toomey’s non-supportive “support” for Pennsylvanian Phil Restrepo for the Third Circuit, when Toomey cooperated with GOP leadership in their efforts to slow down the confirmation process as much as possible.

And of course, Toomey quickly obeyed when McConnell demanded that his fellow Republicans refuse to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.  This unprecedented act of obstruction has significant harmful consequences, as described in a recent report by our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation and the Constitutional Accountability Center.

So perhaps Toomey could adopt this as a campaign slogan:

Pat Toomey:  Putting Pennsylvania first  (Except when his Washington DC party boss tells him not to)

PFAW

Report by Elizabeth Warren Slams GOP Obstruction of Nominees

Since Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley is making sure that the committee he runs completely ignores Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination, one might think that he’s using the extra time to at least process the president’s many circuit and district nominees. Not!

While Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s brazen and unprecedented refusal to consider Garland has drawn a great deal of attention,  PFAW has long reported on how this obstruction, far from being unique to Garland, is an extension of how the Senate GOP has treated President Obama’s lower court nominees for most of his time in office.

Today, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made a tremendous contribution to the national conversation, issuing a new report entitled Going to Extremes: The Supreme Court and Senate Republicans’ Unprecedented Record of Obstruction of President Obama’s Nominees.  The senator covers how Republicans have worked hard not to thoughtfully vet both judicial and executive branch nominations, but to slow down their confirmations as much as possible, or block their confirmations altogether.

She uses Senate Republicans’ own statements about the Garland nomination to show the disingenuousness of the rationales for obstruction they present to the public and demonstrates that their obstruction is unprecedented.  And with a prosecutor’s efficiency, she makes the powerful case that the GOP has consistently and deliberately slow-walked or blocked altogether the president’s circuit and district court nominees, as well as his executive branch nominees.

Supported with facts and figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Sen. Warren’s new report is a devastating indictment of a political party that has misused the confirmation process to prevent the executive and judicial branches from functioning effectively to protect consumers and workers, hold large corporations accountable, and protect equality.

As she notes in the report’s conclusion:

From the moment the Supreme Court vacancy arose, Senate Republicans linked arms in an attempt to deny President Obama the full authority of his office in the final year of his presidency. They cynically claimed they wish to “let the people decide,” but the people have already decided. Twice. They elected President Obama in 2008 by nine million votes and re-elected him in 2012 by five million votes. Republicans’ statements over many weeks have made clear that their true interest is what it has been for the past eight years: to block and hinder President Obama at every turn, dragging out or blocking outright the confirmation of nominees across the government and the courts.

As the report shows, the GOP has a shameful record of obstruction going back to President Obama’s first days in office.  The unprecedented blockade against Garland is only the apex of a pattern that has gone on for years.

PFAW

A Circuit Court Nominee for Mitch McConnell to Consider

Two days after nominating Rebecca Haywood to the Third Circuit, and one day after nominating Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, President Obama today continued to work to make sure that our nation’s appellate vacancies are filled with qualified judges.  Specifically, he has nominated Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth T. Hughes to the Sixth Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  Upon confirmation, she would become the first woman from Kentucky on the 6th Circuit.

This seat has been vacant since Judge Boyce Martin retired back in 2013.  The court’s caseload is so heavy that the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts has officially designated the vacancy as a judicial emergency.

This nomination comes after long and extensive consultations with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, the nominee’s two home state senators.  In fact, press reports from more than two years ago noted that Justice Hughes was being vetted by the White House.  No one can credibly claim that the president didn’t engage in adequate consultation.

For six years as Minority Leader and now as Majority Leader, McConnell has done everything he can do obstruct President Obama’s judicial nominees.  Even as Minority Leader, he was able to needlessly block votes on highly qualified consensus nominees for months.  As Majority Leader, it is even easier to cause needless delay in floor votes, and McConnell’s Senate confirmed only 11 judges last year, the lowest number since 1960 (when there were hundreds fewer judgeships to fill).

McConnell has already led his party to say they will refuse to consider Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination, a position so absurd and so widely unpopular that several cracks have already appeared in the party’s wall of obstruction.  We certainly hope that McConnell doesn’t show similar partisanship with Justice Hughes’s nomination.  There is a judicial emergency that needs to be filled, and a qualified nominee stands ready to fill it.

PFAW