What They're Saying in Arizona about the Supreme Court Nomination

Across the state, Arizonans continue to speak out against Senate Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give Judge Garland a hearing and vote. From business leaders, to academics, to local newspapers, voices in Arizona have sounded a disappointed tone in Senators McCain and Flake’s decision to inject partisanship into the Supreme Court and in their refusal to carry out certain parts of their jobs for partisan gain.

Arizona Republic: Paul Bender and Myles V. Lynk: Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty, now the Senate needs to do its (Op-Ed). “The Constitution provides that the president ‘shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.’ President Obama has fulfilled his constitutional duty to nominate. Now it is up to the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to decide whether to consent to the president's nomination.”

Susan Shultz, President of SSA Executive Search International, INAC Global and The Board Institute: “The vacancy leads to uncertainty and thus impacts the markets and weighs on business decisions, perhaps delaying them or deflecting progress. It is the President's responsibility to nominate and Congress' responsibility to advise. I don't believe it is appropriate to wait for the next President to appoint.”

Mike Barclay, Director of Business Development at SHIPHAUS: “A vacancy in the Supreme Court would not have an immediate impact on our business activity. The position should carefully be offered to one that has profound knowledge of our constitutional rights, and will respectively continue to honor them when making incredibly important decisions for our country and citizens.”

Rosemary Dom, retired RN at Engineering and Equipment Company: “Our concern with this vacancy relates to the message being sent by our legislators. How would a business expect to grow if it refused to recognize the importance of healthy cooperation and compromise?”

Brandon Cheshire, Owner of SunHarvest Solar: “Without a ruling on the Clean Power Plan, and carbon regulations we may be subjected to burdensome regulations imposed by heavily conservative states. We need SCOTUS to make a decision.”

Eastern Arizona Courier: Blacktracking the vote (Editorial). “The president, who, by the way, is a two-term president elected by the populace, did his job by naming a nominee, a man who was even suggested by one of the staunchiest Republicans out there, and yet the Senate won’t even dignify the selection by even meeting with the man, much less take a vote on confirmation, which would be doing its job.  Garland himself is known to be a uniter, one who runs toward the center of both parties, like the majority of Americans, and tries to bring the far right and the far left together on issues to solve them instead of letting them fester. So where does that leave the bench and what kind of nomination do the Republicans face if either current front runner from the two parties is elected as president? Do the establishment Republicans really want to see who Donald Trump or even Ted Cruz would nominate, not to mention Hillary Clinton?  If Clinton wins the presidency, Obama could attempt to get Garland confirmed in a ‘lame-duck’ session; or he could withdraw Garland and let Clinton make the selection as the Republican-controlled Senate has repeatedly demanded that the choice be given to the new incoming president. In that case, what is to stop her from nominating Obama to the Supreme Court? It certainly is feasible as the precedent was already set when William Howard Taft, who served as the 27th president of the United States, became the 10th chief justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1921.”

Arizona Republic: Montini: Upside down McCain flips (again) on Court nominee (Op-Ed). “McCain is worried about his reelection. Maybe he’s even running scared.  But the facts are clear: He previously voted to confirm Judge Garland. He previously argued in favor of holding hearings for nominees.  This isn’t about a lame-duck president.  It’s about a lame argument.”

Arizona Daily Sun: Nomination deserves to go forward (Editorial). “[T]he checks and balances in the Constitution call for a timely presidential nomination and a fair hearing and up-or-down vote in the Senate. A lifetime appointment means a new justice will not just serve during the tenure of this president or even the next one but potentially those in office several decades from now. A new president next year would have no more legitimate claim to shaping the makeup of the court 20 years from now than the current one. It’s also likely that the same hyperpartisanship at work in the presidential election will shape the type of nominee that President Obama will send to the Senate. Only a jurist of moderate legal views is likely to have a chance at piercing the initial obstructionism displayed by Republicans.”

Eastern Arizona Courier: A stalling senate does the country a disservice (Editorial). “Senate Republicans are threatening a mini-shutdown.... Senate Republicans are threatening to block any Supreme Court nomination brought forward by President Obama .... The Constitution is clear — the president is to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court when a vacancy occurs.... it’s time to do the job for which the senators were elected. Senators should vote their conscience and, if they truly believe a nominee is not qualified to sit on the bench, they should vote against confirmation. But they must hold hearings and vote.”

Arizona Republic: Just name Scalia's replacement, already (Editorial). “President Barack Obama would be derelict in his duties under the Constitution if he did not nominate someone to bring the U.S. Supreme Court back to its full complement of nine justices. The Senate will be shirking its responsibility unless that nominee gets a prompt and fair hearing... The public had a voice when Obama was elected to a second term. He may lose influence as a lame duck with less than a year left to serve. But he does not become less of a president. His duties are not prorated. It would be irresponsible for him to defer such an important decision to a successor who won’t take office for eleven months. With eight justices who are roughly split on ideology, there is a likelihood for the court to deadlock 4-4.... The president should make a careful search and name someone who is a centrist and who has the intellectual wherewithal to contribute to the kind of debate necessary to reach solid decisions.... The president should make a careful search and name someone who is a centrist and who has the intellectual wherewithal to contribute to the kind of debate necessary to reach solid decisions.... The Constitution is also clear on what the Senate has to do. Slow-walking the nomination, stalling it or refusing to acknowledge the need for a ninth justice are not among the listed duties. The Senate’s job is to provide ‘advice and consent.’ That means giving the president’s nominee a fair hearing and taking a vote in a timely way.”