Across Michigan, people continue to speak out against Senate Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give Judge Garland a hearing and vote. From business leaders to local newspapers, Michigan voices are supporting Senators Stabenow and Peters as they call to keep partisanship out of the Supreme Court—and to give Judge Garland a fair hearing and a timely vote.
Detroit News: Senate should give Garland a hearing (Editorial). “If voters perceive Republicans as blocking a qualified candidate out of spite, it could hurt those senators who are already facing tough re-election fights. And with Donald Trump on a path to the GOP presidential nomination, McConnell and his fellow Republican senators must make a careful calculation. They must know that if nominated, Trump is a long bet to win in November, and his presence on the ballot could take out Republican congressional candidates. If Hillary Clinton is the next president, and if she enjoys a Democratic Senate, her nominee to the court will almost certainly be younger, more liberal and less palatable to conservatives than Merrick Garland. McConnell should bow to the qualifications of this nominee, give him a hearing and judge his appointment on the merits, not on politics.”
Livingston Daily: Senators turn their backs on Constitution (Editorial). “Senate Republican leaders have vowed not to consider any Supreme Court nomination from President Barack Obama. Whether you like him or not, Obama is granted the power to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. Within days of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Senate leaders publicly announced there would be no confirmation hearings, no vote and not even a courtesy meeting with Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia. When our own senators are willing to blatantly disregard the Constitution for election year showboating, it’s a dangerous step. Obama has just under a year to serve, and there’s no reason to expect him to stop making decisions. He has a duty and obligation, and it’s crucial for the Supreme Court to have nine justices; there needs to be someone to make a deciding vote.”
Paul Savage, CEO of Nextek Power: “We can't have the highest court in the land diminished by a vacancy that pushes cases to lower courts - as we have already seen. This undermines the confidence the business community needs to have in the ultimate fairness in our legal system.”
Ty Faulkner, Chief Office of Rural Health IT: “Many important Supreme Court cases and pending decisions involve helping diverse populations and minority underserved Americans. The political process should not be allowed to keep ‘the people’s’ long hard fought decisions to be held in limbo awaiting fair equitable reviews by a full 9 Justices. As a leader involved in building healthcare technology companies for the underserved communities, I admonish quick action to fill any Supreme Court vacancies at any time regardless of party affiliation within a reasonable time frame as necessary to find the right candidate. I'm sure all of our elected congressional and executive branch leaders have their hearts and intentions focused on this effort so I wish them all ‘God's Speed’ to settle this important matter soon.”
Charles Moret, President of Invest Michigan: “Failing to act on the Supreme Court nomination is a gross failure in governing; it demonstrates an inability to compromise in doing what is in the best interest of the country and greatly undermines the confidence in our government.”
Margaret Fizgerald, Chief Financial Officer of Allied Rethink Ink: “This is disgusting. More posturing in Washington that signals to the rest of the country that our leadership is out of touch with the mainstream. A delay in the Supreme Court nomination and vetting process contributes to the uncertainty that is already rampant. As CFO and a member of the executive management team at my company, integrity is my most important asset. Clearly the Republican leadership doesn't think the way I do.”
Noel Nevshehir, Director of International Business at Automation Alley: “The biggest challenge facing many companies today--- including our organization's 1000 members---is a lack of economic predictability in terms of how current and pending rules, regulations, and taxes will impact the future of their businesses. The extent to which this can be influenced by the next Supreme Court Justice, for better or worse, remains to be seen.”