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

Across the state, people from Arkansas continue to speak out against Senate Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give Judge Garland a hearing and vote. Local newspapers across the state have sounded a disappointed tone in Senators Boozman and Cotton’s decision to inject partisanship into the Supreme Court and in their refusal to carry out certain parts of their jobs for partisan gain.

The Pine Bluff Commercial: SCOTUS history against GOP (Editorial). “In short, it’s time for the Republican Party to grow up, suck it up and deal with the reality of Obama. The people have spoken. They twice voted to give Barack Obama the mantle of the presidency and all that entails, including the discretion to make nominations to federal positions. Why are Republican silencing those voices? Republicans like to wrap themselves in the Constitution when it suits their needs, but shed it just as quickly when they are rationalizing their own pursuits.”

Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette: Breaking bad (Editorial). “Arkansas can be proud that its senior senator has the backbone to stand for what he's convinced is right, but is also capable of listening to people who want something different.  Naturally, Boozman's meeting inspired his Democratic challenger, Conner Eldridge, to blast the ‘same old obstructionism’ he said both parties have participated in in the past. And if the current president were Republican, the Democrats of this era would engage in the same kind of Senate strategy as McConnell.  Ironically, he was also blasted from conservative corners for his 20-minute meeting with Garland. A conservative advocacy group's spokesman referred to Boozman's ‘error of judgment.’  That's the Washington, D.C., perspective. It wouldn't -- and certainly shouldn't -- fly in Arkansas. If we're at a point in this country where a conversation with someone with whom you have political differences is an error, we've regressed into a new age.”

Arkansas Times: Ernest Dumas: Ignoring the founders (Op-Ed). “We happen to know what the founders meant when they prescribed that justices be chosen not by election, but by the president alone with the consent of the Senate. The remarkable Federalist Papers explained the rationale for the strong federal government that the new constitution established and for the Constitution's component parts. Nothing is better elucidated than the role of the judiciary and how and for how long Supreme Court justices and other judges were to be chosen: lifetimes. Alexander Hamilton did most of the analysis in six essays in which he explained why the president alone, not Congress or another body, should do it, notwithstanding the chance that the president could go astray by naming a crony or a family member. The Senate would be a check on the appointment of ‘an unfit character.’ It could reject the appointment and force the president to name another. Hamilton's essays were directed at the anti-federalist criticism of lifetime appointments instead of popular elections for judges.”

Pine Bluff Commercial: Steve Brawner: Disorder in the court (Op-Ed). “At the very least, the Supreme Court sometimes will look like Congress in these coming months: divided and paralyzed. A 4-4 decision means the lower court’s ruling in that particular case will stand. Let’s hope those positions get filled if they come open.”

Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: Brenda Blagg: Senate’s stall is purely political (Op-Ed). “Refusing him a hearing now isn’t about Garland’s fitness for the Supreme Court. It is about politics. Period … Most would prefer the Senate respect the confirmation process and vote on Obama’s nomination, despite the Republican argument that people should first get a new president – and a new nominee for the Supreme Court.”