Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the court in 2010, said Thursday that the Senate should “go ahead and hold a hearing” for President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.
Stevens made the remarks at a forum at the New York Historical Society, according to the Huffington Post, where he also said it was “really unfortunate” the seat vacated by the late Justice Antonin Scalia likely will still be vacant when the court begins a new term in October.
“I’m not aware of any confirmation process that’s been delayed to the extent that this one is,” Stevens said.
Stevens joins former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in supporting Obama’s efforts to have his nominee considered. She said in February that she didn’t agree with the GOP stance that the appointment should wait until the next president is inaugurated, arguing “we need somebody there now to do the job and get on with it.”
The current justices have played down the effect of the vacancy on their workload, though there have been signs that it has not been business as usual at the court.
Stevens said Thursday that “there are certain cases you just can’t decide” with the court lacking a ninth justice, according to the Huffington Post. He also said that Garland was a “really fine judge and an awfully decent man” and Obama “couldn’t have picked a better” nominee.
If Stevens knew anything about the Constitution, he’d know that only “the next president” is allowed to nominate someone for the SCOTUS (but only if the current president is a Democrat and congress is controlled by the GOP).
I hope President Clinton will nominate all women for the Supreme Court. I love the ones we have.
Currently have. Sandra Day O’Connor, not so much.
Butt out Stevens. Stop trying to bring rational thought to GOTP politics. This is being handled expertly by Sen. Mitch “Turkey Fugger” McConnell!!!1111!!!11!!
I think the wheels are about to come off this wagon very soon…certainly before the election. The scenarios they are staring at are all more unfavorable than appointing Garland. The only down side is the perception of caving…but they are more at risk in their key battleground Senate races for denying the hearings.
With Trump, they have no idea who he would appoint, and they won’t have a majority to push it through anyway. Yes, I know, historically is been rare for the Senate to deny a SCOTUS appointment, but by their antics, they have thrown that idea in the dumpster.
With Hillary, they will get someone more liberal and much younger, and again, won’t have the majority to stop it.
Or they can go with an older moderate that Orrin Hatch said would fly right through…before he was nominated.