Senate shirking its duty to advise, consent on Supreme Court pick

I have a very simple message for Senate Republicans: Do your jobs, and allow me to do mine.

I was elected by the voters in Washington state to be their voice, but I can’t do that if Republicans refuse to allow the Senate to perform one of our most important Constitutional responsibilities: carefully evaluating and voting on whether to confirm justices of the Supreme Court.

When I talk to people across Washington state, they tell me they are frustrated with the partisanship and dysfunction in Congress. Democrat, Republican, independent: They say they want their government to work for them and their families, and they want Congress to help make that happen. I couldn’t agree more.

I know we can make progress when we work together, and I am particularly proud of the work I’ve done to do to break through the gridlock with the bipartisan budget deal I struck with now-Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, and the bipartisan law I wrote with Republicans that finally fixed the broken No Child Left Behind law. But unfortunately, instead of working with us to build on that bipartisan work, the Republicans who control Congress have now taken the dysfunction to a whole new level and are spreading it beyond Congress and into our nation’s highest court.

Just hours after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican leaders made it clear that they had no intention to even consider filling the vacancy. They immediately decided that they were going to put petty partisan politics above our Constitution, our country, and their responsibilities as United States senators — and that they would hobble the Supreme Court for a year or more in the hopes that a Republican is elected President. That is absolutely wrong, and I hope they reconsider.

The Constitution could not be clearer. Article II, Section 2 states: “[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.”

The Constitution doesn’t say “shall nominate only in his first three years.” It doesn’t say “shall nominate unless the Senate doesn’t feel like working that year.” It says he “shall nominate,” then it is up to the Senate to ultimately help make sure that vacancy is filled with a qualified person.

To be very clear: Republicans aren’t objecting to a person. They are objecting to the very idea that this president should be allowed to nominate anyone. Now they are saying they won’t even hold hearings, no matter how qualified a nominee is. And some of them are saying they would refuse to even meet with one!

So how are Republican leaders defending this? Well, they are saying that we should wait until voters weigh in this November. But voters have weighed in. They elected President Obama and entrusted him with the powers and responsibilities granted by the Constitution for four full years — not just three.

Republicans also say there is precedent to stall on Supreme Court nominations in the last year of a president’s term, but that is just not true. A Democratic Senate unanimously confirmed Justice Kennedy in President Reagan’s last year in office.

So I am truly hoping that Republican leaders reverse course on this. The Supreme Court plays such an important role in protecting the rights, liberties and responsibilities of all Americans from women’s health and rights, to workers’ rights, the environment, campaign finance and more. But in order to function for our families, the court shouldn’t have vacancies and potential deadlocks at every turn.

I’m not arguing for Republicans to simply rubber stamp anyone the president sends us — of course not. I know I will personally be evaluating any nominee using my long-held standards: Are they qualified? Are they honest, ethical, and fair? Will they be independent and even-handed? And will they uphold our rights and our liberties, including the critical right to privacy? I would like to ask those questions of a nominee on behalf of Washington state families, but I can’t do that unless Republicans let us act.

Making sure Washington state families have a voice on issues like these is what drove me to run for the United States Senate. Back in 1991, so many of us watched the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings on television, and we were frustrated. We couldn’t believe that he wasn’t pushed on the issues we cared about most, and we didn’t think that the members of that committee represented the full spectrum of perspectives in our communities. So I ran for office to be a voice for families like mine, and I have worked hard to make sure Washington state families have a seat at the table in the debate over nominees for the highest court in the land.

I consider that to be our job as United States senators, and I am hoping that Republican leaders will put politics aside and let us do it.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, Democrat, is the senior senator from the state of Washington.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, May 20

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Snohomish County Councilmembers Nate Nehring, left, and Jared Mead, speaking, take turns moderating a panel including Tulip Tribes Chairwoman Teri Gobin, Stanwood Mayor Sid Roberts and Lynnwood Mayor Christine Frizzell during the Building Bridges Summit on Monday, Dec. 4, 2023, at Western Washington University Everett in Everett, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Candidates, voters have campaign promises to make

Two county officials’ efforts to improve political discourse skills are expanding to youths and adults.

Charles Blow: Trump remains at war with the U.S. Constitution

His threats of deportation and violence against peaceful protesters, though vague, can’t be ignored.

Choice in November is between democracy, autocracy

The country belongs to the people and in November they can choose… Continue reading

Opposing Israel’s Netanyahu isn’t antisemitic

I support the demonstrations against Israel’s Benjamin Netayahu. Counter to what the… Continue reading

Trump is being pursued in court because he can win

It is so obvious that President Biden, the Democrats and much of… Continue reading

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, May 19

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Attorney General Bob Ferguson speaks to a reporter as his 2024 gubernatorial campaign launch event gets underway in Seattle, on Saturday, Sept. 9, 2023. ( Jerry Cornfield/Washington State Standard)
Editorial: Recruiting two Bob Fergusons isn’t election integrity

A GOP activist paid the filing fee for two gubernatorial candidates who share the attorney general’s name.

Foster parent abstract concept vector illustration. Foster care, father in adoption, happy interracial family, having fun, together at home, childless couple, adopted child abstract metaphor.
Editorial: State must return foster youths’ federal benefits

States, including Washington, have used those benefits, rather than hold them until adulthood.

Making adjustments to keep Social Security solvent represents only one of the issues confronting Congress. It could also correct outdated aspects of a program that serves nearly 90 percent of Americans over 65. (Stephen Savage/The New York Times) -- NO SALES; FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY WITH NYT STORY SLUGGED SCI SOCIAL SECURITY BY PAULA SPAN FOR NOV. 26, 2018. ALL OTHER USE PROHIBITED.
Editorial: Social Security’s good news? Bad news delayed a bit

Congress has a little additional time to make sure Social Security is solvent. It shouldn’t waste it.

Eco-nomics: What it takes to take carbon out of energy

The transition to clean energy demands investment in R&D and the grid and streamlining processes.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.