What They're Saying in South Carolina about the Supreme Court Nomination

Across the state, South Carolinians 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, South Carolina voices have sounded a disappointed tone in Senators Graham and Scott’s decision to inject partisanship into the Supreme Court and in their refusal to carry out certain parts of their jobs for partisan gain.

Anita Nelam, Chief Strategy Officer at Innovative Global Supply, LLC: “Our constitution is not a plaything and the Senate need to stop treating it as such. The American people spoke four years ago when the President was elected for a second four-year term. The GOP needs to get serious and take care of their business, just as they expect us to do on ours. The Court has important work to resolve this year and this vacancy needs to be filled sooner rather than later.”

Graham Douglas, J.D., CEO of Creative Solutions Consultants: “Uncertainty is the economy's worst enemy. Garland is a fair and good judge. He deserves to be confirmed. We the American people deserve a Senate that will follow the Constitution and do its job. The political instability caused by the Republican Party for many years has hurt everyone.”

Post and Courier: Gridlock at the Supreme Court (Editorial). “But by postponing consideration of President Obama’s nominee, federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, the senators are passing up an opportunity to lay before the public just how Judge Garland has approached the law. They won’t be in a position to learn whether he agrees with the importance of judicial self-discipline or is more inclined to bring his own personal value judgments into his decisions — and just what his decisions have shown about those value judgments.  As Justice Scalia wrote, without consistent rules for interpreting statutes and the Constitution, ‘Our process of constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments,’ which are debatable and subject to political challenge because ‘people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school — maybe better.’  Of course, by holding such hearings the Senate would be under no obligation to confirm Judge Garland if a majority of Senators found his judicial philosophy objectionable. But the Senate performs a service by bringing such issues forward even for the high court nominee of a lame duck president.”

Greenville News: Senate Should Vote On Merrick Garland Nomination (Editorial). “Elections have consequences. This is a principle we have repeated time and again, and it means that when presidents are elected they have four years (or eight) to carry out their agenda.  The way Republicans are reacting to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court demonstrates complete ignorance of this idea. In fact, their denial of the consequences of Obama’s election and reelection began within hours of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would not allow a floor vote on an Obama Supreme Court nominee. It is a shameful refrain that has been picked up by a long list of Republican senators including South Carolina Sens. Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott.”

Post and Courier: Give Garland fair consideration (Editorial). “Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices. The Senate decides whether to confirm them. The Constitution is clear on that process. But also clear, unfortunately, is the hyper-partisan disregard of that founding document by many Republican senators now that there’s an opening on the Supreme Court. Those lawmakers, all of whom have long billed themselves as staunch defenders of the Constitution, insist that they won’t even consider President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill that vacancy. Soon after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and numerous Republican colleagues sounded that warning. Now that the president has nominated Merrick Garland, chief judge of District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, to the high court, they are sticking to that obstructive stance. That’s a particularly misguided position given Judge Garland’s reputation as a generally moderate jurist who decides cases not on ideological grounds but sound legal principles.”

Across the state, South Carolinians 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, South Carolina voices have sounded a disappointed tone in Senators Graham and Scott’s decision to inject partisanship into the Supreme Court and in their refusal to carry out certain parts of their jobs for partisan gain.

Anita Nelam, Chief Strategy Officer at Innovative Global Supply, LLC: “Our constitution is not a plaything and the Senate need to stop treating it as such. The American people spoke four years ago when the President was elected for a second four-year term. The GOP needs to get serious and take care of their business, just as they expect us to do on ours. The Court has important work to resolve this year and this vacancy needs to be filled sooner rather than later.”

Graham Douglas, J.D., CEO of Creative Solutions Consultants: “Uncertainty is the economy's worst enemy. Garland is a fair and good judge. He deserves to be confirmed. We the American people deserve a Senate that will follow the Constitution and do its job. The political instability caused by the Republican Party for many years has hurt everyone.”

Post and Courier: Gridlock at the Supreme Court (Editorial). “But by postponing consideration of President Obama’s nominee, federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, the senators are passing up an opportunity to lay before the public just how Judge Garland has approached the law. They won’t be in a position to learn whether he agrees with the importance of judicial self-discipline or is more inclined to bring his own personal value judgments into his decisions — and just what his decisions have shown about those value judgments.  As Justice Scalia wrote, without consistent rules for interpreting statutes and the Constitution, ‘Our process of constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments,’ which are debatable and subject to political challenge because ‘people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school — maybe better.’  Of course, by holding such hearings the Senate would be under no obligation to confirm Judge Garland if a majority of Senators found his judicial philosophy objectionable. But the Senate performs a service by bringing such issues forward even for the high court nominee of a lame duck president.”

Greenville News: Senate Should Vote On Merrick Garland Nomination (Editorial). “Elections have consequences. This is a principle we have repeated time and again, and it means that when presidents are elected they have four years (or eight) to carry out their agenda.  The way Republicans are reacting to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court demonstrates complete ignorance of this idea. In fact, their denial of the consequences of Obama’s election and reelection began within hours of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would not allow a floor vote on an Obama Supreme Court nominee. It is a shameful refrain that has been picked up by a long list of Republican senators including South Carolina Sens. Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott.”

Post and Courier: Give Garland fair consideration (Editorial). “Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices. The Senate decides whether to confirm them. The Constitution is clear on that process. But also clear, unfortunately, is the hyper-partisan disregard of that founding document by many Republican senators now that there’s an opening on the Supreme Court. Those lawmakers, all of whom have long billed themselves as staunch defenders of the Constitution, insist that they won’t even consider President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill that vacancy. Soon after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and numerous Republican colleagues sounded that warning. Now that the president has nominated Merrick Garland, chief judge of District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, to the high court, they are sticking to that obstructive stance. That’s a particularly misguided position given Judge Garland’s reputation as a generally moderate jurist who decides cases not on ideological grounds but sound legal principles.”