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 The website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work.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

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

Across the state, Vermonters continue to speak out against Senate Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give Judge Garland a hearing and vote. Vermont voices are supporting Senators Leahy and Sanders as they call to keep partisanship out of the Supreme Court—and to give Judge Garland a fair hearing and a timely vote.

Brattleboro Reformer: Beware GOP’s revisionist history, reality (Editorial). “The ‘will of the American people’ twice manifested itself in their election of President Obama to the presidency. Each time, he was elected for four years, not three. The Republicans who have been experimenting with a variety of awkward, often contrary explanations for a week to account for their reluctance to deal with the reality of a Supreme Court vacancy should ask themselves what they would do if a Republican was in the White House finishing up a second term. What they would do is their job, the one called for in the Constitution.”

Bennington Banner: Do-nothing Republicans take pay under false pretenses (Editorial): “No wonder Washington Republicans always seem to be so angry.  Washington's do-nothing party has actually managed to exceed its own low standards in recent weeks. The most high-profile abomination, of course, is the unprecedented refusal of Senate Republicans to even consider filling a Supreme Court vacancy for no reason beyond spiting the Democratic president. This could leave the court short a justice for a year or more.  In attempting to defend the indefensible following President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, the kind of safe, moderate choice Republicans would normally support, some congressional Republicans have claimed that Democrats would do the same if the situation was reversed. They don't know this to be true, of course, but if majority Senate Democrats did refuse to hold hearings for a Republican president's Court nominee they would be absolutely wrong in doing so. A speculated wrong doesn't make right the Republicans' grievous, unconstitutional wrong.”

Caledonian Record: Clear Voice (Editorial). “The Senate Should Hold Hearings Straightaway And Confirm Judge Garland.” “In the current, toxic, political climate, we have no idea what will happen at the polls. But we do know that Americans get a “voice” every election cycle and most recently used it to say they wanted Obama. Since there’s a vacancy now, and he’s our President, he should get to fill the seat. The Senate should hold hearings straightaway and confirm Judge Garland.”

Brattleboro Reformer: Obama Supreme Court nominee puts heat on Republicans (Editorial). “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell got it right Wednesday when he said ‘Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.’ The people used their voices when they twice elected Barack Obama as president, giving him the constitutional power to nominate a Supreme Court justice when a vacancy emerged. What he meant, of course, is that Republicans should stall in the hope that Donald Trump will get to choose the next Supreme Court nominee.  Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican and Trump supporter, surprised only with his honesty last week when he acknowledged that ‘If a conservative president replaces a conservative justice, there's a little more accommodation to it.’ The GOP's goal of spiting President Obama is obvious, and the endless well of partisanship and hypocrisy Washington Republicans can draw upon has long been obvious to all. If Republicans refuse to do their constitutional duty regarding Judge Garland, Democrats should not be reluctant to use their refusal as a cudgel this election season.”