Thanks @POTUS. I met w/ Judge Garland because my responsibility to people of #IL is more important than partisanship pic.twitter.com/4EloRLfDlo— Mark Kirk (@SenatorKirk) April 7, 2016
Supreme Court Hands Big Loss To Conservatives On Voting Districts
Conservatives lost big today in a seldom-seen unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court on how voting districts are drawn.
From The New Civil Rights Movement:
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a rare unanimous decision, has just ruled that states may rely on total population, and not just eligible voter population, when redrawing voter districts. Conservatives in Texas argued that only eligible voters should be relied upon when redistricting, claiming the U.S. Constitution forbids counting immigrants, children, and prisoners, who are not legally eligible to vote.
“The plaintiffs alleged the Texas legislative map effectively diluted the representation of citizens in rural, Republican-leaning areas in favor of Democratic-trending cities like Houston, where the population includes immigrants and children who are ineligible to vote,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who authored the decision, wrote.
BREAKING: SCOTUS unanimously rejects Texas GOP attempt to limit voting power of Hispanics & other minority groups https://t.co/nSShQLktr4— MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 4, 2016
Public Unions Win SCOTUS Case With 4-4 Ruling
#SCOTUS releases opinion in major public-unions case, Friedrichs v. CTA, 4-4 affirmed by an equally divided Court— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 29, 2016
With Scalia’s seat open, plus the Republicans blocking any nomination, public union workers just got a big win in the U.S. Supreme Court.
#KarmaForTheRepubs
Bernie Sanders: I Would Nominate A More Progressive SCOTUS Candidate
Rachel Maddow welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders to discuss not only his campaign, but also the current fight going on over Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland between President Obama and Senate Republicans.
Sanders was clear in saying he would definitely support Garland’s nomination, but added that the nominee is not as progressive as he’d like. Sanders went on to say that should be be elected president this fall, he would ask Obama to withdraw the nomination so that a more progressive candidate could be put forward:
“Yes, I would. I think I’m 100% prepared to support Judge Garland. I think he’s clearly very knowledgeable and can serve ably on the Supreme Court. But between you and me, I think there are some more progressive judges out there. I have said over and over again that I do have a litmus test for a Supreme Court justice, and that litmus test is that justice must be loud and clear in telling us that he or she will vote to overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. I am very worried about the future of American democracy and about the ability of billionaires to buy elections. That is my litmus test, and that’s what I would insist on.”
Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To U. S. Supreme Court
CNN is reporting that President Obama will nominate Merrick Garland, chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Disctrict of Columbia Circuit to replace recently deceased Antonin Scalia on the U.S.Supreme Court.
Garland, 63, the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been on short lists before. An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Garland is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. As a Justice Department lawyer he supervised the investigations in the Unabomber case as well as the Oklahoma City bombing.
Senate Republicans do not plan to vet or have hearings on the nominee, and say the next President should be able to choose Scalia’s replacement. Obama and Democrats argue that with 10 months left in his term, there is plenty of time for the Senate to take up and confirm a new justice.
At 63, Garland is much older than the other contenders on the short list such as Judges Sri Srinivasan and Paul Watford. Garland’s supporters argue he is the nominee that the senators couldn’t refuse even in a contentious environment. “He’s the establishment of the establishment,” one backer said.
Garland was nominated to the D.C. appellate court in 1997 by President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 76-23.
Recent polls show Americans want the U.S. Senate to hold confirmation hearings for President Obama’s nominee.
Garland is somewhat of a surprise given his age (63) and his centrist history as a judge, But perhaps that’s exactly the point in Obama making his choice.
From ThinkProgress:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
UPDATE: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor today following the President’s announcement of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court:
“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction…The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.”
It may be news to Sen. McConnell, but the American people did have a say in the direction of the Supreme Court. It was called the 2012 presidential election when President Obama was reelected to a second FOUR year term with 332 electoral votes and more than five million more popular votes than his opponent. The people spoke loud and clear.
U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Alabama Supreme Court Ruling Against Same-Sex Adoption
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s refusal to recognize adoption regarding a same-sex couple.
From USA Today:
The justices upheld a challenge brought by an Alabama woman after her state’s highest court refused to recognize the adoption she and her former lesbian partner were granted in Georgia.
The couple never married and have since split up. But the case presented a test of an issue that crops up occasionally in state and federal courts since the Supreme Court struck down state bans on same-sex marriage: Can gays and lesbians be denied adoption rights?
The case was brought by “V.L.,” as she is identified in court papers, against her former partner “E.L.,” who gave birth to three children between 2002-04 while the couple was together. To win adoption rights for V.L., they established temporary residency in Georgia.
Now that they have split, E.L. agreed with the Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled in September that Georgia mistakenly granted V.L. joint custody. E.L.’s lawyers argued that “the Georgia court had no authority under Georgia law to award such an adoption, which is therefore void and not entitled to full faith and credit.”
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, which worked on the appeal, issued a statement today which reads in part:
“The Supreme Court’s reversal of Alabama’s unprecedented decision to void an adoption from another state is a victory not only for our client but for thousands of adopted families,” said National Center for Lesbian Rights Family Law Director Cathy Sakimura, who is representing V.L. “No adoptive parent or child should have to face the uncertainty and loss of being separated years after their adoption just because another state’s court disagrees with the law that was applied in their adoption.”
Nevada: Gov. Sandoval Says “No” To SCOTUS Consideration
Brian Sandoval, moderate Republican and current governor of Nevada, has taken himself out of consideration for the current vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Via Politico:
“Earlier today, I notified the White House that I do not wish to be considered at this time for possible nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Sandoval said in a statement. “I have also spoken to Senators Reid, Heller and McConnell and expressed the same desire to them. The notion of being considered for a seat on the highest court in the land is beyond humbling and I am incredibly grateful to have been mentioned.”
It really became news that Sandoval was being floated as a possible replacement for recently deceased Antonin Scalia.
CNN: Republican Governor Of Nevada Being Vetted For Supreme Court Nomination?
Republican Gov. @BrianSandoval is reportedly being vetted as a possible #SCOTUS nominee https://t.co/9JjpXdHWO6 https://t.co/LRfG4a60KC— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 24, 2016
Wow. This would make for a very interesting choice.
Living in Nevada myself, I’ve found Gov. Brian Sandoval to be very moderate and fair. Or, said another way: if you’re going to have a Republican governor, he’s a good one.
I’ve heard for years Sandoval would love to be a Supreme Court justice. And it would tough for the Senate Republicans to deny Sandoval a hearing.
President Obama Pens Column For SCOTUSblog Regarding Choosing A Supreme Court Nominee
President Obama has penned a column for SCOTUSblog explaining how he plans to choose a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court after the passing of Antonin Scalia.
As many of you know, Senate Republicans have announced they plan to hold no hearings or votes on a replacement until after the presidential election, and thus shirk their constitutional responsibility. Yesterday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he wouldn’t even MEET a nominee.
More obstructionism from the Republicans.
Here’s part of Obama’s essay:
First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.
Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.
But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.
A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.
President Obama: “It Will Be Difficult” For Senate Republicans To Deny SCOTUS Nominee Proper Consideration
.@POTUS: "It will be very difficult” for @SenateMajLdr to block my nominee https://t.co/9JjpXdHWO6 https://t.co/IJwU08Ovgp— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 24, 2016
President Obama tells CNN that “it will be very difficult” for Senate Majority Leader to deny a SCOTUS nominee consideration.