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

Across the state, Texans 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 the Lone Star State have sounded a disappointed tone in Senators Cornyn and Cruz’s decision to inject partisanship into the Supreme Court and in their refusal to carry out certain parts of their jobs for partisan gain.

Susan Jamie, Owner of Ferra Coffee International: “It is so unfortunate that the rights of the people are not in the forefront of some of the political leaders in the Senate. We the people have the right to have our elected president nominate a Supreme Court judge. And we the people have the right to have the elected leadership of Senate give the nominee a fair opportunity to prove his qualification to uphold the great responsibility to serve the people of the United States as a Supreme Court Judge. As a small minority business owner I am disappointed in the leadership of the Republican Senate for making this important issue a matter of their own professional gain and not take in consideration the good and will of the people.”

Dena De Santiago-Young, Owner of First Investment, Inc.: “A vacancy on the Supreme Court would leave businesses in mental limbo, i.e., knowing that the country's high court isn't whole. The effects of an incomplete Supreme Court would be emotional and infinite.”

Marylyn Harris, President of Harrland Health Care: “The President’s job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when there is a vacancy, so the Supreme Court Justices can do their jobs and rule on issues that affect my business transactions. This issue is key to our national security.”

Johnny Riley, Jr., CEO of J Riley Consulting Group, LLC: “The legislative and executive branches of government are playing with fire as it relates to small business development as they play partisan politics. Many small businesses like ours are impacted, because of their failure to take action on this important action and it causes us to rethink how we invest in the future expansion.”

Waco Tribune: Agree or disagree, Baylor Law School panel smartly highlights supreme outrage (Editorial). “In a private interview with Professor Guinn afterward, he insisted that Senate Republicans were on constitutional ground — but that their actions deserve severe political consequences that certain family standards preclude us from quoting here. We have heard from other constitutional scholars who believe Republicans assault the Constitution by declining to ‘advise and consent,’ as the Constitution would seem to demand upon the president’s nomination of a Supreme Court nominee. They’re convincing, too.  But while Guinn, Starr and others on last week’s panel might disagree, their view is no less instructive. By declining to hold Senate hearings for much-respected U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Chief Justice Merrick Garland to answer questions, Senate Republicans further politicize the nation’s highest court — a colossally regrettable move. They also marginalize the one branch of government that arguably operates most efficiently.”

Odessa Advertiser: Senate can’t shirk duty (Editorial). “And it is the American people who lose. At some point, we have to say enough. These nominations are too important for Democrats and Republicans to play games. If you buy into the argument to delay consideration of the nomination until next year, how will you feel when a late-term Republican president makes a similar nomination, as very well could happen.  We don’t understand how Sen. McConnell can keep a straight face when he says the Senate should wait to hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination until a new president is sworn in (after which, of course, the nomination no longer exists) to give the American people a say in who the new justice will be.  The American people did have a say. On Nov. 6, 2012, they re-elected President Barack Obama to a second term with 51 percent of the vote to 47 percent for Republican Mitt Romney. They didn’t re-elect Obama for three more years. We re-elected him for four more years, to run through Jan. 20, 2017. His term didn’t end because we are in the midst of a contentious and ugly presidential nomination process.  President Obama upheld his constitutional duty in naming a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia. It appears he chose well, selecting a moderate judge who has earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats.  Now, we urge — no, we insist — that the Senate do its duty. While the Constitution doesn’t establish a timeline, it does say the Senate shall consider that nomination and either confirm or reject Judge Garland.   Nothing says the Senate has to confirm his nomination, but he is a good, decent American who has given a lifetime of service to this nation and deserves to be considered in a timely fashion.  Failure of senators to do so betrays the trust Americans put in those we have elected to the Senate. And it’s not like they are busy doing anything else.”

San Antonio Express: Why Senate should act (Editorial). “There are other important cases in which lack of a ninth justice will mean affirming lower court rulings. Among these, for instance, are cases involving contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act for religiously affiliated organizations, and jury selection. This last case will test whether systematically excluding African-Americans from juries is unconstitutional. In naming Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13 at a West Texas resort, the president is simply doing his constitutional duty to appoint. The Senate should do its constitutional part and leave politics — and the wish for a Republican in the White House — out of it. Even if another justice can’t get to the court in time to help decide current cases, the deadlock demonstrates the peril of leaving the seat vacant. Senators, give Garland a vote.”

Dallas Morning News: Sen. John Cornyn Should Steer Party Away From Obstructionist Path (Editorial). “We feel this course risks ruin for the Senate GOP, as voters will see through its transparently phony rationalizations.  Consider the op-ed Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote in The New York Times on Monday, arguing that the 2014 Senate elections prove that Obama should not be allowed to make another Supreme Court appointment. He said Democrats have no right to complain because they opposed past nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. And as senator, Obama had opposed John Roberts and Samuel Alito, too.  What he left out was that each and every one of those nominees had been given a hearing, a debate and a vote. Only Robert Bork, the most extreme nominee put forth by a president in modern era, was denied a seat on the court.  Hatch’s arguments follow on weeks of statements from Cornyn and McConnell about the so-called ‘Biden Rule.’ There is no such thing and never has been. In a 90-minute speech in 1992 Biden said he’d seriously consider not holding a hearing on a nominee in that election year if -- and only if -- President George H.W. Bush didn’t consult with senators first or if he didn’t choose a moderate.  Obama consulted senators. And he nominated a moderate. He even tipped Hatch off early that that was his plan. Hatch, praising Garland as a judge, told reporters simply: ‘I don’t believe him,’ referring to Obama’s pledge to name a moderate.  Come November, voters will decide who has been honest and who hasn’t.”

Austin Daily Herald: Court nominee deserves a hearing (Editorial). “Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals who has drawn praise from both parties. He is a centrist. His law clerks went on to clerk for liberal and conservative judges.  Republicans in the Senate would be wise to approve Garland — after at least giving him the usual hearing. The presidential candidate who captures the moderates in the middle wins the Oval Office. With Donald Trump on the way to stealing the Republican nomination from the establishment side of the Grand Old Party, he no doubt would shoo away the centrist voters toward the Democratic nominee. Don’t take our word. Nearly every political scientist is forecasting that outcome if Trump gets the nomination.  The strategy of waiting until the next president could result in a liberal president nominating a dyed-in-the-wool liberal judge in 2017. Surely, McConnell, Rubio and Grassley would rather see a moderate than a clear liberal. Garland, for instance, sided with President George W. Bush on detaining suspected enemies at the Guantanamo Bay prison without the right to challenge their imprisonment. He also has had rulings on the other side of Guantanamo Bay issues, too, showing he is discerning, not political. He adheres to his interpretation. He is even-handed.  The Senate Republicans should give Garland the hearing he deserves. Without a doubt, there is precedent for that step.”

Waco Tribune: High court’s top jurist needs to remind Senate of its constitutional duties (Editorial). “Of the defiant refusal to consider Obama’s nominee to succeed conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there is no doubt. Republicans who supposedly cherish the Constitution now prove how hollow such claims are by opting to neglect their duty to advise and consent on that nominee through hearings and an up-or-down vote. Their idea that “precedent” allows the Senate to defer such nominations in a president’s final year is absolute hokum….. Shortly before Scalia’s death, Roberts spoke strongly on the need to scrutinize high court nominees’ qualifications but leave politics out of it — something we saw last week in Baylor University President and former federal jurist Ken Starr’s own endorsement of Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland. Roberts must now stand tall again and remind the Senate of its duties — or risk seeing his court hobbled in its ability to resolve the disputes of lower courts. He must attack efforts to politicize the court to defend its integrity — or risk going down in history as complicit in a national disgrace.”

Bryan-College Station Eagle: Senate can't shirk its duty on the Merrick Garland nomination (Editorial). “President Obama upheld his constitutional duty in naming a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia. It appears he chose well, selecting a moderate judge who has earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats.  Now, we urge -- no, we insist -- that the Senate do its duty. While the Constitution doesn't establish a timeline, it does say the Senate shall consider that nomination and either confirm or reject Judge Garland. Nothing says the Senate has to confirm his nomination, but he is a good, decent American who has given a lifetime of service to this nation and deserves to be considered in a timely fashion.  Failure of senators to do so betrays the trust Americans put in those we have elected to the Senate.  And it's not like they are busy doing anything else.”

Corpus Christi Caller Times: Abbott, Cornyn, Cruz forsake the Constitution (Editorial). “All three are reputed strict constitutionalists, a label that means they are strict conservative interpreters of the Constitution for what it says, not what they would like it to say or what they think they can stretch it to mean. Yet, these three constitutional loyalists have volunteered their services to a conspiracy to stretch that revered document like a rubber band until it frays or snaps. In response to the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, they want to obstruct President Barack Obama's constitutional duty to replace him. They agree that the Senate should shirk its duty to consider and approve whom Obama nominates unless the nominee is discovered to be incompetent — which nominee Merrick Garland is well known not to be. These three Texas Republicans have chosen fealty to a specific desired political outcome over loyalty to the Constitution. The Republicans simply don't want Obama or any Democrat to make that appointment and they are willing to contort the Constitution to do it.”

Texas Herald Democrat: Jonathan Cannon: How Republicans could rebrand themselves (Editorial). “Republicans have been presented a golden opportunity to stop the ride, hop in the driver’s seat of the steamroller — it’s a steamroller because progress is gruelingly slow — and start us down the path of forward motion. That opportunity is President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Garland is a centrist justice with a strong judicial record. The Wall Street Journal says Garland, ‘has staked out differences with more liberal judges on criminal matters and parted ways with conservative judges on federal regulatory power and access to the courts.’ The judge has a reputation for consensus building, the Journal’s Law Blog says. That’s clearly something we need right now. Garland is as uncontroversial as the Senate is going to get from a Democrat. He’s not a minority and doesn’t represent any facet of society that isn’t already represented on the court. He’s 63, which means his impact in shaping the court will likely be smaller.”

San Antonio Express: Give high court nominee a hearing (Editorial). “The mantra from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn and others has been to let the American people decide via the ongoing presidential election. This is problematic for a number of reasons. It places political calculation over individual qualification, to the detriment of the nation. But it also ignores the decision voters made in 2012 when they elected Obama to a second term. Didn’t the people make a decision then? Do those votes not count simply because we are in an election year? As a matter of principle, the U.S. Senate should hold a confirmation hearing for Garland followed by a vote, judging his nomination on his abilities, viewpoints and legal interpretations. It’s a sad reflection of the moment that this is even a question. If after this process the majority of senators reject Garland as unqualified for the nation’s highest court, then so be it.”

Star-Telegram: Senate slams a political door on court nominee (Editorial). “Does the Constitution contemplate a popular vote as part of the process of filling a Supreme Court seat? No, and the Founders were quite deliberate in that decision.  They constructed a court intended to be above the political fray, not subject to popular opinion that might be fleeting and not beholden to either of the other two branches of government.  The president cannot appoint a new justice without the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate cannot name a new justice on its own.  Republican senators, because they hold a majority of Senate seats (54 of 100), have the power to withhold the slightest movement that might lead to consent.  Not because Garland is not worthy, some of them say and as even McConnell implied, but because they want their own political base to see them as resisting Obama.  There is real anger in that base over some decisions from the court — in particular, last year’s rulings recognizing the right to same-sex marriage and for the second time allowing the Affordable Care Act to survive.  Some, including GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, have called for periodic judicial retention elections to determine whether Supreme Court justices should keep their seats or be replaced.  It is not good to subject the Supreme Court to politics. Justices should bow only to the Constitution, not political winds.  McConnell and Senate Republicans will achieve their goal of delaying this nomination because they can, not because they should.”

McAllen Monitor: US Senate obligated to consider president's Supreme Court nominee (Editorial). “On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated the centrist jurist, who is chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and who has enjoyed the support and admiration of Democrats and Republicans in the past. But now Senate leaders, our own Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn among them, are arguing that the country should wait until the people have had a chance to speak with the selection of a new president in November and his or her inauguration into office next January — nearly 10 months away. The irony is that Garland’s nomination comes in response to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict constitutionalist who, presumably, would have favored Obama’s move and a Senate vote on the nomination — whether to approve or reject — because that procedure is what the Founding Fathers set out in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution says the president ‘shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court.’ It has no provision for any type of referendum by the people, probably because our Founding Fathers knew that members of the Senate represented the people in that chamber.”

Dallas Morning News: Obama's done his job, now it's time for senators to do theirs (Editorial). “President Barack Obama has done his duty and nominated a qualified federal judge to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Judge Merrick Garland deserves, as any reasonable nominee deserves, a full hearing and a vote. ... Judge Garland is a former federal prosecutor, one who helped send Timothy McVeigh to the death chamber. He’s won praise as a judge from Republican senators and colleagues. Obama has surely disappointed many in his own party by choosing such a centrist judge to sit on the court, and one who does not deepen its racial, ethnic or gender diversity. Instead, he has rejected the overtly political choice many conservatives predicted with scorn, and has in effect dared the Senate GOP to hold to its policy of partisan obstructionism at its peril. We hope those senators, especially our own two, refuse that dare and instead do what Obama has done — step away from the partisan brink and focus on their duty.”

Across the state, Texans 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 the Lone Star State have sounded a disappointed tone in Senators Cornyn and Cruz’s decision to inject partisanship into the Supreme Court and in their refusal to carry out certain parts of their jobs for partisan gain.

Susan Jamie, Owner of Ferra Coffee International: “It is so unfortunate that the rights of the people are not in the forefront of some of the political leaders in the Senate. We the people have the right to have our elected president nominate a Supreme Court judge. And we the people have the right to have the elected leadership of Senate give the nominee a fair opportunity to prove his qualification to uphold the great responsibility to serve the people of the United States as a Supreme Court Judge. As a small minority business owner I am disappointed in the leadership of the Republican Senate for making this important issue a matter of their own professional gain and not take in consideration the good and will of the people.”

Dena De Santiago-Young, Owner of First Investment, Inc.: “A vacancy on the Supreme Court would leave businesses in mental limbo, i.e., knowing that the country's high court isn't whole. The effects of an incomplete Supreme Court would be emotional and infinite.”

Marylyn Harris, President of Harrland Health Care: “The President’s job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when there is a vacancy, so the Supreme Court Justices can do their jobs and rule on issues that affect my business transactions. This issue is key to our national security.”

Johnny Riley, Jr., CEO of J Riley Consulting Group, LLC: “The legislative and executive branches of government are playing with fire as it relates to small business development as they play partisan politics. Many small businesses like ours are impacted, because of their failure to take action on this important action and it causes us to rethink how we invest in the future expansion.”

Waco Tribune: Agree or disagree, Baylor Law School panel smartly highlights supreme outrage (Editorial). “In a private interview with Professor Guinn afterward, he insisted that Senate Republicans were on constitutional ground — but that their actions deserve severe political consequences that certain family standards preclude us from quoting here. We have heard from other constitutional scholars who believe Republicans assault the Constitution by declining to ‘advise and consent,’ as the Constitution would seem to demand upon the president’s nomination of a Supreme Court nominee. They’re convincing, too.  But while Guinn, Starr and others on last week’s panel might disagree, their view is no less instructive. By declining to hold Senate hearings for much-respected U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Chief Justice Merrick Garland to answer questions, Senate Republicans further politicize the nation’s highest court — a colossally regrettable move. They also marginalize the one branch of government that arguably operates most efficiently.”

Odessa Advertiser: Senate can’t shirk duty (Editorial). “And it is the American people who lose. At some point, we have to say enough. These nominations are too important for Democrats and Republicans to play games. If you buy into the argument to delay consideration of the nomination until next year, how will you feel when a late-term Republican president makes a similar nomination, as very well could happen.  We don’t understand how Sen. McConnell can keep a straight face when he says the Senate should wait to hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination until a new president is sworn in (after which, of course, the nomination no longer exists) to give the American people a say in who the new justice will be.  The American people did have a say. On Nov. 6, 2012, they re-elected President Barack Obama to a second term with 51 percent of the vote to 47 percent for Republican Mitt Romney. They didn’t re-elect Obama for three more years. We re-elected him for four more years, to run through Jan. 20, 2017. His term didn’t end because we are in the midst of a contentious and ugly presidential nomination process.  President Obama upheld his constitutional duty in naming a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia. It appears he chose well, selecting a moderate judge who has earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats.  Now, we urge — no, we insist — that the Senate do its duty. While the Constitution doesn’t establish a timeline, it does say the Senate shall consider that nomination and either confirm or reject Judge Garland.   Nothing says the Senate has to confirm his nomination, but he is a good, decent American who has given a lifetime of service to this nation and deserves to be considered in a timely fashion.  Failure of senators to do so betrays the trust Americans put in those we have elected to the Senate. And it’s not like they are busy doing anything else.”

San Antonio Express: Why Senate should act (Editorial). “There are other important cases in which lack of a ninth justice will mean affirming lower court rulings. Among these, for instance, are cases involving contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act for religiously affiliated organizations, and jury selection. This last case will test whether systematically excluding African-Americans from juries is unconstitutional. In naming Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13 at a West Texas resort, the president is simply doing his constitutional duty to appoint. The Senate should do its constitutional part and leave politics — and the wish for a Republican in the White House — out of it. Even if another justice can’t get to the court in time to help decide current cases, the deadlock demonstrates the peril of leaving the seat vacant. Senators, give Garland a vote.”

Dallas Morning News: Sen. John Cornyn Should Steer Party Away From Obstructionist Path (Editorial). “We feel this course risks ruin for the Senate GOP, as voters will see through its transparently phony rationalizations.  Consider the op-ed Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote in The New York Times on Monday, arguing that the 2014 Senate elections prove that Obama should not be allowed to make another Supreme Court appointment. He said Democrats have no right to complain because they opposed past nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. And as senator, Obama had opposed John Roberts and Samuel Alito, too.  What he left out was that each and every one of those nominees had been given a hearing, a debate and a vote. Only Robert Bork, the most extreme nominee put forth by a president in modern era, was denied a seat on the court.  Hatch’s arguments follow on weeks of statements from Cornyn and McConnell about the so-called ‘Biden Rule.’ There is no such thing and never has been. In a 90-minute speech in 1992 Biden said he’d seriously consider not holding a hearing on a nominee in that election year if -- and only if -- President George H.W. Bush didn’t consult with senators first or if he didn’t choose a moderate.  Obama consulted senators. And he nominated a moderate. He even tipped Hatch off early that that was his plan. Hatch, praising Garland as a judge, told reporters simply: ‘I don’t believe him,’ referring to Obama’s pledge to name a moderate.  Come November, voters will decide who has been honest and who hasn’t.”

Austin Daily Herald: Court nominee deserves a hearing (Editorial). “Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals who has drawn praise from both parties. He is a centrist. His law clerks went on to clerk for liberal and conservative judges.  Republicans in the Senate would be wise to approve Garland — after at least giving him the usual hearing. The presidential candidate who captures the moderates in the middle wins the Oval Office. With Donald Trump on the way to stealing the Republican nomination from the establishment side of the Grand Old Party, he no doubt would shoo away the centrist voters toward the Democratic nominee. Don’t take our word. Nearly every political scientist is forecasting that outcome if Trump gets the nomination.  The strategy of waiting until the next president could result in a liberal president nominating a dyed-in-the-wool liberal judge in 2017. Surely, McConnell, Rubio and Grassley would rather see a moderate than a clear liberal. Garland, for instance, sided with President George W. Bush on detaining suspected enemies at the Guantanamo Bay prison without the right to challenge their imprisonment. He also has had rulings on the other side of Guantanamo Bay issues, too, showing he is discerning, not political. He adheres to his interpretation. He is even-handed.  The Senate Republicans should give Garland the hearing he deserves. Without a doubt, there is precedent for that step.”

Waco Tribune: High court’s top jurist needs to remind Senate of its constitutional duties (Editorial). “Of the defiant refusal to consider Obama’s nominee to succeed conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there is no doubt. Republicans who supposedly cherish the Constitution now prove how hollow such claims are by opting to neglect their duty to advise and consent on that nominee through hearings and an up-or-down vote. Their idea that “precedent” allows the Senate to defer such nominations in a president’s final year is absolute hokum….. Shortly before Scalia’s death, Roberts spoke strongly on the need to scrutinize high court nominees’ qualifications but leave politics out of it — something we saw last week in Baylor University President and former federal jurist Ken Starr’s own endorsement of Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland. Roberts must now stand tall again and remind the Senate of its duties — or risk seeing his court hobbled in its ability to resolve the disputes of lower courts. He must attack efforts to politicize the court to defend its integrity — or risk going down in history as complicit in a national disgrace.”

Bryan-College Station Eagle: Senate can't shirk its duty on the Merrick Garland nomination (Editorial). “President Obama upheld his constitutional duty in naming a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia. It appears he chose well, selecting a moderate judge who has earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats.  Now, we urge -- no, we insist -- that the Senate do its duty. While the Constitution doesn't establish a timeline, it does say the Senate shall consider that nomination and either confirm or reject Judge Garland. Nothing says the Senate has to confirm his nomination, but he is a good, decent American who has given a lifetime of service to this nation and deserves to be considered in a timely fashion.  Failure of senators to do so betrays the trust Americans put in those we have elected to the Senate.  And it's not like they are busy doing anything else.”

Corpus Christi Caller Times: Abbott, Cornyn, Cruz forsake the Constitution (Editorial). “All three are reputed strict constitutionalists, a label that means they are strict conservative interpreters of the Constitution for what it says, not what they would like it to say or what they think they can stretch it to mean. Yet, these three constitutional loyalists have volunteered their services to a conspiracy to stretch that revered document like a rubber band until it frays or snaps. In response to the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, they want to obstruct President Barack Obama's constitutional duty to replace him. They agree that the Senate should shirk its duty to consider and approve whom Obama nominates unless the nominee is discovered to be incompetent — which nominee Merrick Garland is well known not to be. These three Texas Republicans have chosen fealty to a specific desired political outcome over loyalty to the Constitution. The Republicans simply don't want Obama or any Democrat to make that appointment and they are willing to contort the Constitution to do it.”

Texas Herald Democrat: Jonathan Cannon: How Republicans could rebrand themselves (Editorial). “Republicans have been presented a golden opportunity to stop the ride, hop in the driver’s seat of the steamroller — it’s a steamroller because progress is gruelingly slow — and start us down the path of forward motion. That opportunity is President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Garland is a centrist justice with a strong judicial record. The Wall Street Journal says Garland, ‘has staked out differences with more liberal judges on criminal matters and parted ways with conservative judges on federal regulatory power and access to the courts.’ The judge has a reputation for consensus building, the Journal’s Law Blog says. That’s clearly something we need right now. Garland is as uncontroversial as the Senate is going to get from a Democrat. He’s not a minority and doesn’t represent any facet of society that isn’t already represented on the court. He’s 63, which means his impact in shaping the court will likely be smaller.”

San Antonio Express: Give high court nominee a hearing (Editorial). “The mantra from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn and others has been to let the American people decide via the ongoing presidential election. This is problematic for a number of reasons. It places political calculation over individual qualification, to the detriment of the nation. But it also ignores the decision voters made in 2012 when they elected Obama to a second term. Didn’t the people make a decision then? Do those votes not count simply because we are in an election year? As a matter of principle, the U.S. Senate should hold a confirmation hearing for Garland followed by a vote, judging his nomination on his abilities, viewpoints and legal interpretations. It’s a sad reflection of the moment that this is even a question. If after this process the majority of senators reject Garland as unqualified for the nation’s highest court, then so be it.”

Star-Telegram: Senate slams a political door on court nominee (Editorial). “Does the Constitution contemplate a popular vote as part of the process of filling a Supreme Court seat? No, and the Founders were quite deliberate in that decision.  They constructed a court intended to be above the political fray, not subject to popular opinion that might be fleeting and not beholden to either of the other two branches of government.  The president cannot appoint a new justice without the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate cannot name a new justice on its own.  Republican senators, because they hold a majority of Senate seats (54 of 100), have the power to withhold the slightest movement that might lead to consent.  Not because Garland is not worthy, some of them say and as even McConnell implied, but because they want their own political base to see them as resisting Obama.  There is real anger in that base over some decisions from the court — in particular, last year’s rulings recognizing the right to same-sex marriage and for the second time allowing the Affordable Care Act to survive.  Some, including GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, have called for periodic judicial retention elections to determine whether Supreme Court justices should keep their seats or be replaced.  It is not good to subject the Supreme Court to politics. Justices should bow only to the Constitution, not political winds.  McConnell and Senate Republicans will achieve their goal of delaying this nomination because they can, not because they should.”

McAllen Monitor: US Senate obligated to consider president's Supreme Court nominee (Editorial). “On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated the centrist jurist, who is chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and who has enjoyed the support and admiration of Democrats and Republicans in the past. But now Senate leaders, our own Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn among them, are arguing that the country should wait until the people have had a chance to speak with the selection of a new president in November and his or her inauguration into office next January — nearly 10 months away. The irony is that Garland’s nomination comes in response to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict constitutionalist who, presumably, would have favored Obama’s move and a Senate vote on the nomination — whether to approve or reject — because that procedure is what the Founding Fathers set out in the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution says the president ‘shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court.’ It has no provision for any type of referendum by the people, probably because our Founding Fathers knew that members of the Senate represented the people in that chamber.”

Dallas Morning News: Obama's done his job, now it's time for senators to do theirs (Editorial). “President Barack Obama has done his duty and nominated a qualified federal judge to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Judge Merrick Garland deserves, as any reasonable nominee deserves, a full hearing and a vote. ... Judge Garland is a former federal prosecutor, one who helped send Timothy McVeigh to the death chamber. He’s won praise as a judge from Republican senators and colleagues. Obama has surely disappointed many in his own party by choosing such a centrist judge to sit on the court, and one who does not deepen its racial, ethnic or gender diversity. Instead, he has rejected the overtly political choice many conservatives predicted with scorn, and has in effect dared the Senate GOP to hold to its policy of partisan obstructionism at its peril. We hope those senators, especially our own two, refuse that dare and instead do what Obama has done — step away from the partisan brink and focus on their duty.”