Senate Republican leader: No lame-duck hearing of court pick


He floated the idea of considering the Garland’s nomination in the postelection session because “between him and somebody that a President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear”.At this point, it is unlikely that President Obama will get to pick the next SCOTUS Justice, especially now that Mitch McConnell has set the ground rules for what it would take to get him or her confirmed.Maybe the Republicans should be careful what they wish for. “Throughout his jurisprudence runs a common thread, a dedication to protecting the basic rights of every American”. He said last week he might allow a hearing on Mr. Garland’s behalf.Obama made a “strategic calculation” in nominating someone who is less extreme and more moderate, Prakash said.Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman of OH – who both face tough re-election contests this fall – as well as Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) have expressed an openness to meeting with Garland.”Judge Garland is far from being a consensus nominee and would be an incredibly different jurist than Justice Scalia”.Republicans instantly responded to Antonin Scalia’s death by proclaiming that no nominee, however admirable in temperament, intellect and experience, would be accorded a hearing. The former federal prosecutor, who oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing and Unabomber cases, leans left on gun-related issues but to the center otherwise, including national security.Garland also seems eminently qualified. But the slot was ultimately filled by Justice Elena Kagan.Garland has an extensive background in law. At 63 years old, he is the oldest nominee since Justice Lewis Powell in 1971 and at least a decade older than other nominees rumored to be on the shortlist, including his D.C. Circuit colleagues, Judges Patricia A. Millett and Sri Srinivasan, Eighth Circuit Judge Jane L. Kelly, and Ninth Circuit Judge Paul J. Watford. However, he said making such a nomination is not a basic process. The president nominates, the Senate gives its advice and consent, and only then can the president complete the nomination.The fight over his nomination this time around is likely to be much more bitter, with Garland landing squarely in the middle of a contentious election-year battle, which Obama touched on several times, urging lawmakers to grant a hearing, and ultimately, an up-or-down vote to Garland. Does Garland have a chance of actually being confirmed by the Senate?”I have fulfilled my constitutional responsibility, now it’s time for the Senate to do theirs”, Obama said.Sometime during the new president’s first term, there could be long-awaited vacancies.”But we’re not giving a lifetime appointment to this president on the way out the door to change the Supreme Court for the next 25 or 30 years”, McConnell said.Garland’s nomination has clearly done little to change his mind, with McConnell reaffirming his position in a Senate floor speech shortly after the announcement. “Senate races are statewide races – you can craft your own message for your own people”, he said.Election law expert Richard Hasen of the University of California at Irvine law school wrote that he is persuaded that Garland would vote to uphold challenged campaign finance restrictions like the one he confronted previous year.Nominations to the lifetime Supreme Court post require Senate confirmation. Israeli settler stabs Palestinian and flees, Salfit
Biden told reporters at the Peres Center, “We have absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to the security of Israel. A spokesperson said the Palestinian attacker had stabbed the Israelis while running along a path near the port.