Readers React: Obama outsmarts the Republicans again with Merrick Garland’s nomination
To the editor: There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the Senate from refusing to consider a presidential nominee. The Constitution does not prescribe the number of justices, it is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to act with only eight members, and there is no doubt that the Democrats would take the exact same position, as they in fact have done in the past, if the shoe were on the other foot. (“Senate Republicans’ refusal to consider Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination is dangerous obstructionism,” editorial, March 16
That said, President Obama is to be applauded for a reasonable, well-qualified, seemingly moderate nomination in Judge Merrick Garland. Furthermore, this nomination probably will prove the Republicans too clever by half, since it is highly probable they will again lose the presidential election (and possibly Congress) and will therefore get a far more liberal-leaning justice from the next president.
Meanwhile, Obama has again shown the Republicans as oafs by practically inviting them to refuse to advise him on a nominee in advance. Why they took that bait instead of at least going through the motions is enough to answer why the establishment candidates have fared so poorly. Obama has politically outsmarted them yet again.
Jeffrey C. Briggs, Hollywood
To the editor: In 2012, we reelected Barack Obama president, empowering him to carry out all the duties of that office for four years, including 2016.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says he wants to let the American people determine who should nominate the next justice of the Supreme Court, but in reality he is denying us the choice we already made. He should not let his newfound veneration of Vice President Joe Biden (at least of one remark he made 24 years ago) blind him to that fact.
Robert Silberg, Los Angeles
To the editor: It’s hard to believe, but there was a time when the Republican Party was populated with intelligent, respectable politicians. Then came Jan Brewer (wag your finger in the president’s face), Christine O'Donnell (I am not a witch), Sharron Angle (abortion causes breast cancer) Sarah Palin (who can see Russia from her house) and now Donald Trump.
It is also a party that is peddling a brand that has passed its shelf life. Most young people (you know, the future) don’t want to roll back the Affordable Care Act, a woman’s right to choose or same-sex marriage.
The Republican Party thinks its only chance of survival is through unfair redistricting, voter suppression and obstructionism. The GOP is dead and in the casket, and there stands McConnell sealing it with his nail gun.
Randall Bruce, Los Angeles
To the editor: Here’s an idea: If the Republicans are hell-bent on thwarting any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court until after the election, then if Hillary Clinton becomes president, perhaps she will nominate Obama to fill the vacancy. After all, he will need a job and is well-suited for the Supreme Court.
For the Republicans, it may fall under the heading of “be careful for what you wish for.”
William Choslovsky, Chicago
To the editor: If Garland is not confirmed and if Trump miraculously wins the White House, our next Supreme Court justice could very well be Judge Judy. Now that’s something for the GOP to think about.
Mike Reynolds, San Diego
Get Group Therapy
Life is stressful. Our weekly mental wellness newsletter can help.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.