WASHINGTON – Mark Kirk on Tuesday became the first Republican senator to meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, criticizing GOP leaders’ refusal to hold confirmation hearings or a vote on the long-time federal judge and praising him as “one of the most eminent jurists in the country.”
There was no sign the session would erode Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s insistence on leaving the vacancy unfilled until President Barack Obama’s replacement names a selection next year. Even so, Kirk’s 20-minute session with Garland provided Democrats with a visual image – and words – that they hope will pressure other Republican senators to end their blockade.
“I think when you just say I’m not going to meet with him and all, that’s too closed-minded,” Kirk told reporters, all but explicitly rebuking McConnell, R-Ky.
Kirk, who represents Democratic-leaning Illinois, is perhaps the most imperiled Senate Republican facing re-election in November. And when it comes to the battle over Obama’s pick to fill the court vacancy, Kirk has been one of the earliest and most outspoken outliers.
He’s one of just three Senate Republicans to say the Senate Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on Garland. And he’s one of two GOP senators – along with Susan Collins, R-Maine – to say the full chamber should vote on the nominee, saying Tuesday he would “obviously” consider voting for him.
The death last month of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia created the court opening, and Obama is pressing to make his third appointment to the high court.
“By leading by example, I’m showing what a rational, responsible guy would do that really wants the constitutional process to go forward,” Kirk said.
Kirk had an additional incentive to be hospitable to Garland: The long-time federal judge and former prosecutor is originally from Chicago.
Matt McGrath, deputy campaign manager for Kirk’s November opponent, Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., said the Republican had done “the bare minimum” by meeting with Garland and said Kirk should pressure McConnell to relent.
Earlier Tuesday, Collins explained the basis for her desire to see the Senate begin considering Garland’s nomination by telling Maine’s WGAN radio, “The first thing I did is I read the Constitution.”
Collins said there was “no basis” for flatly refusing to consider any Obama pick, as McConnell did, and conceded, “Obviously the leader is not real happy with me.” Arguing that a newly elected Democratic president might choose a nominee more liberal than Garland, she said of McConnell, “I’m a bit perplexed by his position.”
McConnell spokesman Donald Stewart declined to comment on Kirk’s and Collins’ remarks.
Democrats have insisted that the Senate go through the regular confirmation process for Garland, currently chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. With most public opinion polls showing majorities favoring Senate action on Garland, Democrats’ goal is to force GOP senators to buckle under pressure or make some facing re-election this fall pay the price on Election Day.
At least 14 Senate Republicans have said they’d be willing to meet with Garland, though many have said they would tell him that he won’t get a vote.
Earlier this month, Kirk said on a Chicago radio program that the Senate should “man up and cast a vote.”
Garland has met with seven Democratic senators and plans to meet Wednesday with two more, Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
Split court gives unions a win
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court Tuesday handed organized labor a major victory, deadlocking 4-4 in a case that had threatened to cripple the ability of public unions to collect fees from workers who chose not join and did not want to pay for the unions’ collective bargaining activities.
It was the starkest illustration yet of how the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month has blocked the power of the court’s four remaining conservatives to move the law to the right.
The case was brought by 10 California public schoolteachers. A ruling in their favor would have affected millions of government workers and weakened public-sector unions, which stood to lose fees both from workers who objected to the positions the unions take and from those who simply chose not to join while benefiting from the unions’ efforts on their behalf.
When the case was argued in January, the court’s conservative majority seemed ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they had declined to join violates the First Amendment. Scalia’s questions were consistently hostile to the unions.
His death changed the balance of power in this case, and most likely in many others, although 4-4 decisions mean an issue remains open and could return to the court in short order. In the case of Tuesday’s ruling, which set no precedent, unions recognized that their victory was only provisional.
Union officials said they were elated by Tuesday’s decision, but they remain wary of future efforts to diminish their effectiveness.
“We know the wealthy extremists who pushed this case want to limit the ability for workers to have a voice, curb voting rights and restrict opportunities for women and immigrants,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union.
The case was brought by the Center for Individual Rights, a libertarian group. Terry Pell, the group’s president, said he was disappointed with Tuesday’s tie vote. “With the death of Justice Scalia, this outcome was not unexpected,” he said. “We believe this case is too significant to let a split decision stand.”
