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 The website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work.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 Connecticut about the Supreme Court Nomination

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

Across the state, people from Connecticut continue to speak out against Senate Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give Judge Garland a hearing and vote. From local newspapers to elected officials, voices in Connecticut are supporting Senators Blumenthal and Murphy as they call to keep partisanship out of the Supreme Court—and to give Judge Garland a fair hearing and a timely vote.

The Day: Senate Republicans Would Be Foolish To Block Supreme Court Nominee (Editorial). “He is eminently qualified, having led the court considered second only to the Supreme Court in importance. He graduated from Harvard Law School with high honors. He clerked for Supreme Court justices William Brennan Jr. and Henry J. Friendly, both nominees of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As a prosecutor, he led the investigations and prosecution into the Oklahoma City bombing. Republicans have no excuse for not acting on this nomination. In fact, they have every reason to act and should do so expeditiously.”

Norwich Bulletin: GOP stance on Scalia replacement a disgraceful dereliction of duty (Editorial). “As many have already pointed out, the people already had their say — they re-elected Obama in 2012. Moreover, the Constitution attaches no conditions to the Senate’s obligation to give nominees due consideration. What it does say, in Article II, Section 2: ‘The President … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court …’ Nowhere does it say, ‘except in presidential election years.’ But Republicans, shamelessly, have imagined that stipulation and manufactured a ludicrous narrative to support it. (And yet, still, we are supposed to buy the notion that they are the true defenders of constitutional values.)”

Connecticut Law Tribune: Obama, Senate Should Not Wait to Fill Scalia Vacancy (Editorial). “The Constitution is clear (as the originalist in Scalia himself would have appreciated): presidents are elected for four-year terms, not three. Article II, Section 1 states: ‘He shall hold his office during the term of four years.’ Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that ‘he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.’ A president has no more power to disregard that duty than he can disregard his constitutional role as commander in chief. The framers did not use ‘shall’ when they meant ‘may.’”

The Day: Senate should act to fill court vacancy (Editorial). “The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate should not for political expediency shirk its constitutional responsibility. President Obama said he will nominate a candidate to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution makes clear it is then the job of the Senate to provide its ‘Advice and Consent’ by either affirming the nomination or rejecting it. Instead, in highly politicized comments delivered just hours after the passing of Justice Scalia, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared, ‘This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.’ Refusing to act on an Obama nomination would disenfranchise the 65,915,796 Americans who voted to re-elect the president and renew his power of appointment. If this vacancy occurred late in the president’s term, next August or September, perhaps McConnell’s position might have some validity. However, there is nearly a year left in the Obama presidency.”

Sen. Chris Murphy: “The president fulfilled his constitutional obligation today, now the Senate must fulfill ours. When each one of us took the oath of office, we swore to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of a Senator. If Senate Republicans refuse to consider the president’s nominee, they will be willingly violating the spirit of that sworn oath. They will be dragging the Supreme Court down into the political muck and compromising the independence and effectiveness of the nation's highest court.”