This is historical material “frozen in time”. The website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work.

Search form

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

Leaders in Colorado are speaking out and telling Senate Republicans to do their job.

Across the state, people from Colorado continue to speak out against Senate Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give Judge Garland a hearing and vote. Voices across Colorado have sounded a disappointed tone in Senator Gardner’s decision to inject partisanship into the Supreme Court and in his refusal to carry out certain parts of his job for partisan gain. They have asked Senator Gardner to follow Senator Bennet’s lead, and support hearings and a vote for Judge Garland.

The Durango Herald: Supreme Court (Editorial). “Article II of the United States Constitution lays out the duties, powers and responsibilities of the president. In Section 2 it says that the president ‘ ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court. ... ‘ It says ‘shall,’ not ‘may,’ ‘can’ or ‘probably ought to.’ And there are no exceptions. Just ‘shall.’”

Denver Post: Senate Should Give Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland A Hearing Senate GOP Could Rue Day They Dismissed (Editorial). “Senate should give Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing Senate GOP could rue day they dismissed… President Obama tried to put Senate Republicans on the spot Wednesday by nominating someone for the Supreme Court who is closer to the center in his judicial philosophy than they could have hoped for under normal circumstances.  But of course these are not normal times. This is the final year of Obama's presidency and Republican senators have insisted they will not hold hearings on any nominee. Yet even if they stick to that pledge — and they likely will — the nomination of Merrick Garland ought to give them pause.  It ought to give them pause if for no other reason than the fact that their party appears headed toward the potentially disastrous choice of Donald Trump as presidential nominee, a candidate who will be a difficult sell to the general electorate. Despite Trump's success in primaries, his ‘unfavorable’ rating with the overall electorate remains in the 60 percent range — a huge obstacle in November.  The low regard so many Americans hold for Trump apparently exceeds their distaste for Hillary Clinton, who is also viewed unfavorably in many polls by a majority of voters.  Nor are Republicans fully sold, as Trump has yet to garner 50 percent of a primary vote.  The conservative blog Powerline summed up the issue for Republicans this way: ‘Compared to a nominee selected by Hillary Clinton next year, Garland would be good. Compared to a nominee selected by a Republican (even Donald Trump) next year, he'd be bad.’  Bet on Trump winning? Republicans would be taking a speculative plunge.”

Daily Camera: Anatomy of a Farce (Editorial). “A tired irony spills from the precious proclamations of loyalty to the Constitution emanating from the Republican presidential debates while Senate Republicans make proclamations of their own — namely, that they will ignore their constitutional responsibility under Article II, Section 2 to consider presidential nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Denver Post: GOP shouldn't rule out Senate vote on Obama's nominee to replace Scalia (Editorial). “Many Republican senators bolted out of the blocks way too fast on whether the Senate should hold hearings on a U.S. Supreme Court nominee by President Obama in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death. Yes, they should hold hearings — unless the president appears to be making a purely political statement with his appointment. Instead, many senators ruled out even considering a nominee this close to an election.”

Montrose Press: Gardner wrong on SCOTUS demand (Editorial). “Our view: The U.S. Constitution makes it clear it is the prerogative of the President to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court when a vacancy occurs. It is the Senate’s duty to confirm or reject.”

Times-Call: Follow the Constitution and nominate a replacement for Scalia (Editorial). “The president of the United States has the power to nominate and — by and with the advice and consent of the Senate — appoint judges to the Supreme Court. The Constitution says so, and it's fair to think that the late Justice Antonin Scalia would want the president and the Senate to hold to a strict application of that language.”

Sen. Michael Bennet: “We should have a vote. That's our job as senators.”

Somair Riaz, CEO of Skindroid, Inc.: “Disruptive innovation at grassroots level by American entrepreneurs inherently requires a belief in fairness and stability of American system at the highest level. I do hope, and would like to believe, that the esteemed leaders at the helm are well aware of this enormous responsibility.”

Ski Milburn, CEO of VAIREX Air Systems: “My company generates over half of its revenues from exports, and in our globalized world, an intelligent, responsive and respected national government is a key part of our competitive equation. A Supreme Court that deadlocks in a series of tie votes, or a Senate that refuses to act on nominations, degrades that position in the eyes of our global customers.”