Opinion, Vantage Point

Senate Republicans gamble with Merrick Garland nomination

On March 16, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland was appointed to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in the Supreme Court.

Analysts have remarked that Garland’s judicial history is quite conservative on criminal justice. It may not be an issue talked about as centrally in politics as the economy or trade, but this issue is a key part of a justice’s job and near to the hearts of many Americans.

Supreme Court analyst Tom Goldstein found that Garland very rarely votes in favor of defendants’ appeals in criminal cases. At a time when Hillary Clinton is running – and winning – on fixing deep flaws in the criminal justice system, Garland is holding firm on the status quo.

If conservatives want a justice on the court who will continue to defend criminal justice laws like three strikes, mandatory minimums and the death penalty, they should at least hold hearings to consider confirming Garland. Instead, hours after Justice Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell affirmed that Republicans will refuse to appoint any nominees President Obama puts forth, before even hearing Garland’s name.

If they were to hedge their bets, Republicans should nominate Garland. He is likely more moderate than any nominee that would be put forth if Obama has a democratic successor; he could help their public relations on criminal justice issues and his appointment would make the G.O.P. look like the more conciliatory party.

But compromise and conciliation is almost nonexistent in national politics; the country is more polarized than ever. Obama’s presidency has proven that the only sure ways to get anything done is to have single-party control over the legislature and presidency, or to use great liberty with executive actions.

Senate Republicans refuse to consider Obama’s nomination under the dogged optimism that a Republican will be elected president and the Senate will remain in Republican control.

The Republicans see a deeply red America, which is somewhat correct. Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the Supreme Court before Scalia passed away. Sixty-two percent of governors, 55 percent of state senators and 56 percent of state representatives are Republicans, according to Ballotpedia. An NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll from last summer found that ideologically, 10 percent more voters identified as conservative than liberal. Republicans see that all they have to do is maintain their strongholds and win just one more election next November in this red America to control every branch of government, including the Supreme Court.

But Republicans have taken a risk. If they fail to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee and they lose the White House or the Senate, the Supreme Court could move much further to the left than it would with the moderate Garland for decades to come. According to “The Weeds,” a policy podcast from Vox.com, there is an unwritten rule about Supreme Court nominations that, barring very extreme ideological candidates, the Senate will confirm any president’s nomination regardless of party, as long as the candidate has good judicial qualifications. The Senate Republicans have not said they will refuse to follow this norm; they have just delayed confirming a candidate until after the next president’s inauguration. So if a Democrat is elected president, they could end up having to confirm a much more liberal justice.

But the idea of Republican control over the legislature, Supreme Court, state government and the presidency is too enticing. The lure of unchecked party control in all branches of government is enough to persuade the party’s leadership to stand their ground and stave off a Supreme Court appointment, even snubbing a safe choice like Garland.

The Grand Old Party understands that the Democratic nominee has a very real chance of winning the presidency. They remember that much of their control was seized in 2014, an election in which voter turnout was the lowest of any election in 70 years, according to PBS NewsHour. They know their party is ideologically crumbling, and a Trump or Cruz Supreme Court nominee could be much less qualified than Garland.

Yet, the gamble they’re making has incredibly high potential benefits at the risk of some very moderate consequences. Even if a Democrat wins the White House, Senate Republicans have already been working under a divided government, so it’s just four more years of pretty much the same dysfunction. And the risk of a Clinton or Sanders judicial nominee is not enough to scare them into conceding a Supreme Court seat before the next election and giving up on their dream of locking in both the executive and judicial branch.

The gamble makes sense. No one should be surprised if Senate Republicans hold firm and refuse to hear Garland. However, this largely assumes the GOP can hold together and not completely destroy itself from the inside out. If Senate Republicans fall apart into chaos of this presidential election, anything is possible, including a Garland appointment to the Supreme Court.

Annie Cappetta is a sophomore majoring in ecosystem science and policy and political science. Vantage Point runs alternate Mondays.

Featured image courtesy Pixabay user Activedia

March 27, 2016

Reporters

Annie Cappetta


Around the Web
  • Miami Herald
  • UM News
  • HurricaneSports

Before Daniel Carter decided to sign with the Pittsburgh Panthers out of St. Thomas Aquinas, the fou ...

Lots of nuggets on new UM quarterback Tate Martell, the fallout and Jarren Williams’ reaction: ▪ Whe ...

Katie Meier is a legend at Duke. Her photo hangs in the concourse at Cameron Indoor Arena. She was t ...

New University of Miami head coach Manny Diaz was asked on the radio the morning after he was hired, ...

Jalen Hurts is off the market — and he’s not making his way to South Florida. The former Alabama Cri ...

Miami Transplant Institute performed 681 transplants during 2018, setting a new national record in k ...

Jazz aficionados launch new video series by sharing invaluable performance techniques. ...

Gisela Vega, the former associate director of LGBTQA Initiatives at Florida International University ...

With new “personas” allowing for a more personalized mobile experience, the redesigned University of ...

Teams of scholars will use U-LINK grants to examine ways to reduce opportunity gaps and biases in mu ...

Miami released its 2019 football schedule highlighted by a season-opening matchup against Florida in ...

University of Miami Athletics announced Thursday that ESPN reporter and UM alumna Allison Williams w ...

University of Miami head women's volleyball coach Jose "Keno" Gandara announced Monda ...

After a weekend bye, the Miami women's basketball team resumes action Thursday evening at 7 p.m ...

University of Miami Athletics announced Monday that it will host its fifth annual Celebration of Wom ...

TMH Twitter
About TMH

The Miami Hurricane is the student newspaper of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. The newspaper is edited and produced by undergraduate students at UM and is published weekly in print on Tuesdays during the regular academic year.