Letter: Senate, Supreme Court engage in judicial jousting
ISSUE | SUPREME COURT Judicial jousting Touché, obstructionists. Well-played, Supreme Court. It appears that the Supreme Court will use its calendar as its check and balance against the U.S. Senate. Tuesday's 4-4 split over a California woman's lawsuit to strike down mandatory union fees clearly spanked the Republican obstructionists for shirking their duty to vet President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court as required by law ("Vacant seat lets unions prevail," Wednesday).
ISSUE | SUPREME COURT
Judicial jousting
Touché, obstructionists. Well-played, Supreme Court.
It appears that the Supreme Court will use its calendar as its check and balance against the U.S. Senate. Tuesday's 4-4 split over a California woman's lawsuit to strike down mandatory union fees clearly spanked the Republican obstructionists for shirking their duty to vet President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court as required by law ("Vacant seat lets unions prevail," Wednesday).
Even retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican appointee, has said Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Antonin Scalia, and Republican-appointed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has criticized the politicizing of the process. Yet, Senate Republicans refuse to even meet with nominee Merrick Garland.
The consequence may be tie votes that bolster appellate decisions that go against Republicans. The Supreme Court is signaling to Senate Republicans that they leave the vacancy on the bench at their own peril.
Bravo! Encore!
|Michael Arlen, Los Angeles