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

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

Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus: “Now that the President has fulfilled his constitutional duty, we urge the Senate to follow suit and give Judge Garland a fair hearing. We believe the responsibility to govern and ensure our Supreme Court can carry out their judicial responsibilities should supersede partisanship and politics. From Brown vs. Board of Education to ensuring marriage equality for all, the Supreme Court is the beacon for ensuring justice for all. The nomination of Judge Garland provides another opportunity for us to bend the moral arc of justice close to all people in our nation.”

Dana Brown, President of Dana Brown & Associates: “Uncertainty in rulings on ACA (I cover premiums for all of my staff, including dental) leaves our insurers and us unable to rely on future coverage. It is a major benefit my company offers its 10 employees. There’s also uncertainty on EPA clean water rules, which directly affects the environmental planning and design work we offer. How do I recommend strategies to my clients when decisions are so fluid?”

The New Orleans Advocate: People already decided who nominates, confirms next Supreme Court justice; no reason to presume otherwise (Editorial). “It’s right there in the U.S. Constitution: The Senate shall advise and consent to a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court except in an election year. Of course, the Constitution says no such thing about election years, but it’s a measure of how badly out of kilter with American traditions is the U.S. Senate today.”

Daily Advertiser: Be open to a good nominee (Editorial). “But sins of obstructionism past do not give Senate Republicans moral high ground now to obstruct Obama from offering a nominee. Obstructionism is obstructionism. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution is plain in its meaning: The president nominates and, with advice and consent of the Senate, appoints Supreme Court justices. The chief executive and Senate, by law and tradition, have roles to play. That doesn’t mean that the Republicans must accept an inferior or out-of-the-mainstream judicial nominee. It simply means they ought to entertain the president’s nomination in good faith.”