Federal Courts and Nominations

Senate GOP Leaders Decide To Opt Out Of Governing

Washington, DC – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and his Republican colleagues on that Committee today declared that they plan to obstruct anyone who President Obama nominates to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last week – including a refusal to hold hearings on or even meet with that nominee. To this news, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

 

“If a Senator is going to serve on the Judiciary Committee, they should know what the Constitution actually says. When it comes to nominations, the Constitution’s text is clear. The President’s duty under Article II is mandatory, saying that ‘he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the supreme Court.’ The Senate has a duty as well. Senators are free to reject a particular nominee, but what the Framers did not contemplate was a complete and shameful refusal by the Senate to even participate in the process.

 

“If the Senate’s leadership continues this course, they simply will have opted out of governing. They will hamstring the Supreme Court over two Terms, and transmit the virus of dysfunction from Congress into the one branch of the federal government doing a job the American people actually approve of.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

Letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans on obstructing any nominee from President Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court, February 23, 2016: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NomineeLetter.pdf 

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Federal Courts and Nominations

Voting Rights and Democracy
December 9, 2025

CAC Release: Major Campaign Finance Case Tests Court’s Willingness to Respect Congress’s Policy Judgments Aimed at Curbing Harmful Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in National Republican...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David H. Gans
Rule of Law
December 8, 2025

CAC Release: Conservative Justices Neglect History at Oral Argument in Monumental Case about Independent Agencies

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Michelle Berger
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Pung v. Isabella County

In Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2025

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Two-Tiered System of Justice That Deprives Military Families of the Same Rights Afforded to Civilians

The Rutherford Institute
WASHINGTON, DC — In a ruling that leaves thousands of military servicemembers and their families...
Rule of Law
December 11, 2025

Raises Serious Legal Questions: Wydra on Boat Strike

Bloomberg
Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra weighs in on the second strike by the United...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Al Otro Lado v. Trump

In Al Otro Lado v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is considering whether the Trump Administration can prohibit certain people from seeking asylum at ports of entry.