SENATOR FLAKE READY FOR ACTION | HILLARY’S NEW CONSTITUTION | What Went Unsaid That Night
October 21, 2016
TODAY IN HISTORY
|On this day in 1971, PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON nominated LEWIS F. POWELL and WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST to the U.S. Supreme Court.
219 SEEMS ENOUGH
|Thursday, Arizona Republican SENATOR JEFF FLAKE alluded to HILLARY CLINTON’S impending victory and nudged his colleagues to start thinking about taking action on JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND’S nomination. Flake: “I said if we were in a position like we were in ’96, and we pretty much knew the outcome, that we ought to move forward. But I think we passed that a while ago. If Hillary Clinton is president-elect, then we should move forward with hearings in the lame duck.” It’s been 219 days since PRESIDENT OBAMA nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. POLITICO’s Burgess Everett reports.
FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT
|For Bloomberg, Noah Feldman considers SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN’S recent promise that GOP senators would block any and all SCOTUS nominations from a President Clinton, and Feldman wonders what might actually happen if that promise holds true. Unfortunately for the Mav from Arizona, it looks like such a scenario might benefit Democrats more than Republicans in the long run.
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal addresses what it calls “Hillary’s New Constitution,” noting that although DONALD TRUMP is “no legal scholar,” in this week’s debate he still showed a “superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than did HILLARY CLINTON.”
TOP ED
|In the Los Angeles Times, ERWIN CHEMERINSKY considers what went unsaid about the Supreme Court in the final presidential debate. He opines, “Although HILLARY CLINTON and DONALD TRUMP discussed the Supreme Court at the debate Wednesday, they didn’t convey how crucial filling its vacancies will be for our constitutional rights.”
PREACH SISTA FRIEND
|In The New York Times, Alan Rappenport echoes Chemerinsky’s concern about the debate’s lack of substantive discourse. He writes, “Lost in the bluster and bombast has been the kind of detailed policy talk that traditionally consumes candidates this time of year.” Discussion around SCOTUS was especially thin, which was disappointing because as Julian E. Zelizer of Princeton University notes, “Of all the issues, this is the one place where the election can have a clear and instant effect.”
SPEAKING OF
|ICYMI, SCOTUSDaily interviewed NPR’s Nina Totenberg, and she had something to say about remembering the importance of the Supreme Court. When asked why the Supreme Court matters Totenberg replied, “Because it really does have an enormous effect on our lives, either directly or indirectly. And, in many ways that seem less obvious than obvious.”
OTHER NEWS
A moment of clarity in 2016 campaign: Confirm Garland
The Sacramento Bee“The 2016 campaign is heading into the final few days, mercifully. But once again, voters are reminded of the starkly different visions of Clinton and Trump, and the partisan times in which we live. We do, however, hold out some hope for a little post-election clarity, and that the Senate will hold hearings on and confirm a judge who clearly is qualified, Merrick Garland.”
Border Patrol Shooting of Mexican Teen Civil Lawsuit
The Wall Street Journal“When, if ever, can a foreign national bring claims under the U.S. Constitution for an incident that happened on foreign soil? The Supreme Court could offer an answer.”