Readers React: What happens with Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination if Hillary Clinton wins?

To the editor: To break the ice on Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court (“How to make the Senate consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court,” Opinion, May 18), consider the following scenario:

Assume Democrat Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) wins in a landslide in November and the Republicans lose their Senate majority. Would a lame-duck Republican-controlled Senate then continue to “put politics first” by pushing the nomination forward and approve him because this well-qualified moderate would appear as a much better option than a liberal nominated by the next Democratic president and approved by a Democratic Senate?

The folly of this Republican attempt to “control” the Supreme Court is that past performance is not an indication of future decisions; many appointees have surprised the Senate and White House with decisions varying from their previous record.

The essential qualification for the Supreme Court is a brilliant legal mind, as the late Justice Antonia Scalia stated when he reportedly suggested that President Obama nominate Elena Kagan for an open seat.

Brian Crowley, El Segundo

..

To the editor: Absent a win by Clinton in November, there are absolutely no circumstances under which Garland would be confirmed to the Supreme Court by the Republican majority in the Senate.

So, why should the institution take the time for hearings and a vote? Plus, if you are Garland, would you rather be rejected by a formal Senate vote or not have your nomination taken up?

Further, what the two liberal members of Congress who authored this op-ed article assert are some of the more important legal issues of our time are simply not on the minds of the Republican-led Senate (or the House for that matter) as matters that need resolution. Reproductive healthcare, the fate of immigrant families, the water situation in Flint, Mich., and the debt crisis in Puerto Rico are all liberal priorities, not Republican ones.

Contrary to what President Obama believes, inaction is indeed a time honored form of specific action by the opposite party.

George A. Vandeman, Pacific Palisades

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook