Majority of Republicans want Senate to move ahead with Garland Sup. Ct. nomination

Since Antonin Scalia died, Republicans in Congress have insisted that the public must “have a say” as to who should replace him. Which is to say, they think it would be unfair for President Obama to appoint a replacement since Obama is a liberal, and Scalia was not, so the Republicans would rather stall and let the next president pick the replacement.

That argument didn’t go over so well from the get-go, and was especially strained once President Obama actually announced his nominee: chief judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and judicial equivalent of a pair of pleated khakis Merrick Garland. Rather than appointing a liberal jurist, as many Republicans expected him to, Obama picked a moderate who Republicans had previously praised as a “consensus choice” on multiple occasions — essentially daring them to say yes.

They didn’t. Instead, they have asserted principle to argue that, regardless as to Garland’s qualifications, the American people need to “have a say” before any nominee can be considered. Only a handful of Republicans have said they would even meet with Garland, which is now considered a remarkable concession.

Merrick Garland, via Wikimedia Commons

Merrick Garland, via Wikimedia Commons

Well, Monmouth University just gave the American people a say, and the American people aren’t buying the Republicans’ argument.

As they report in their poll’s summary, “The American public feels that a president’s Supreme Court nominations should be taken up by the U.S. Senate no matter when they occur, according to the latest Monmouth University Poll. Specifically, two-thirds say that Pres. Obama’s recent nomination deserves a hearing and 3-in-4 Americans think Senate Republicans are playing politics by refusing to consider to it.”

By a 77-16 margin, respondents indicated that Republicans’ obstruction of Garland’s nomination was more about “playing politics” than it was an effort to “give American people a voice.” That includes 62% of self-identified Republicans who rejected their own party’s talking point on the issue. A majority of Republican respondents also indicated that Garland deserved at least a hearing.

In other words, the public has had its say, and the public has told Congress to do its job. The longer they hold out and stick to this demonstrably bad argument, the worse off their swing state Senate candidates are likely to be in November.

Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

5 Responses to “Majority of Republicans want Senate to move ahead with Garland Sup. Ct. nomination”

  1. Alicejcarter1 says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month .,3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!412➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!412………

  2. 2karmanot says:

    “and judicial equivalent of a pair of pleated khakis Merrick Garland” I just love it when you talk like that Jon! :-)

  3. BeccaM says:

    Yesterday, McConnell admitted that America now confirms its Supreme Court Justices only with the advice and consent of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (a Koch brothers-backed group famous for trying to have the PPACA overturned by the Supreme court in the NFIB v Sebelius case).

    It is rich to hear McConnell claim Obama is already a lame duck president who deserves not a single nomination hearing for the rest of his term, when Senator Chinless McTurtle made the exact opposite argument near the end of Dubya’s maladministration.

  4. heimaey says:

    It’s such a weird concept that they’re calling Obama a lame duck president when the definition states that the successor has to be elected before a president can have their lame duck session. The election is still 8 or so months away.

  5. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    “judicial equivalent of a pair of pleated khakis”

    Thank you. There are so many places to use that analogy.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS