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 The website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work.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

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

Across the state, Delawareans continue to speak out against Senate Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give Judge Garland a hearing and vote. Voices across Delaware are supporting Senators Carper and Coons as they call to keep partisanship out of the Supreme Court—and to give Judge Garland a fair hearing and a timely vote.

Senator Chris Coons: “‘One student said she just couldn’t understand why senators wouldn’t do their job,’ Coons said. ‘If the president nominates someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, she was struggling to understand how they could justify not holding a hearing, not even meeting with them, and leaving the Supreme Court with a vacant seat for most of the year.’”

Delaware News Journal: Our thumbs up, thumbs down for the week (Editorial). “Thumbs Up: To Delaware’s Joe Biden for calling for the Senate to act in a timely manner on the current Supreme Court vacancy. Biden believes that leaving it unfilled would produce "a patchwork Constitution inconsistent with equal justice and the rule of law." Biden's spoke to students and faculty at Georgetown Law School in his first speech on the court vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. The vice president hoped to convince Republican senators that their refusal to consider the nomination of appellate judge Merrick Garland hurts ordinary Americans. Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was nominated by President Obama on March 16 to replace Scalia.”

Delaware News Journal: Court obstructionism nothing but bluster (Editorial). “Merrick Garland may be worthy of a place on the United States Supreme Court.  Then again, perhaps his qualifications don’t quite merit such a significant post.  The point appears to be moot because, as with so much else in Washington these days, it appears the doctrine of obstruction for obstruction’s sake will prevent any meaningful evaluation of President Obama’s nominee… But what exactly is the harm in holding hearings to consider Garland, or any other nominee the President puts forth? Nobody, including the President, is suggesting that filling the post of the late Antonin Scalia is a process to be taken ‘lightly.’ Still, it is a process that must move forward because our society cannot grow if leadership is defined as the act of refusing to act.  McConnell and others who vow to nix any hearings say that through the vote in the November presidential election, the American people will have their rightful say in who should replace Scalia.  We can say with certainty that, as Americans, we have never felt empowered to pick a Supreme Court justice. That’s a good thing, because, last time we checked, the Constitution requires justices be appointed, not voted upon by the citizenry.”