WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has been making the rounds, holding customary one-on-one meetings with senators.
Among his visits Tuesday was a stop at the office of U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., but it remained unclear whether Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey would agree to a sit-down with Judge Garland. Toomey wants the winner of November’s presidential election to pick the next justice.
Mr. Casey met with the judge for 40 minutes today in his Washington office.
“You can’t necessarily make a judgment about someone’s demeanor or who they are as a person until you meet them,” said Mr. Casey, who left the meeting feeling confident that Judge Garland would serve the court well.
“You want someone who has the kind of academic credentials that Judge Garland has, and you want broad-based experience. I think he has all that and he also has significant life experience as a father and a citizen who has lived a full life,” Mr. Casey said.
The Chicago native is a Harvard Law School graduate and a former prosecutor who worked on the Oklahoma City bombing case. President Barack Obama nominated him a week ago to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Meanwhile, Republicans say that as a lame duck president, Mr. Obama has no business choosing a Supreme Court nominee in the final months of his term.
Some, including Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, have refused even to meet with Judge Garland or any other Obama nominee.
Mr. Toomey hasn’t said whether he will or will not meet with Judge Garland, only that voters should get to weigh in when they elect a new president in November. He said last week that he would “be happy to carefully consider” Garland if he were nominated by the next president.
Meanwhile, the judge has already met with Sen. Chuck Schumer, R-N.Y.; Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Patrick Leahy, the leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. He has plans to meet today with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and has an appointment with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, when the Senate returns from its spring break.
The Center for American Progress has been holding rallies across the country in front of state offices of senators they believe are blocking judicial nominations.
One of those rallies is planned for 11 a.m. today in front of Mr. Toomey’s Pittsburgh office at Station Square. Mr. Toomey is up for re-eelection in November.
The rally coincides with arguments in a major U.S. Supreme Court challenge to part of the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Toomey has said it’s “not that big a deal” to have a vacant seat on the court, but Mr. Casey disagrees.
“You don’t want to have a four-four court. You don’t want to have that uncertainty,” he said. “The Constitution doesn’t say ‘the Supreme Court shall be made up of nine members if the Republicans feel like it,’ or that ‘the Senate shall advise and consent if it’s convenient,’” Mr. Casey said. “It’s a nine-member court. It should have nine members.”
Legal scholar Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond said the vacancy could be problematic for cases including the one being argued this morning. Petitioners including David A. Zubik, bishop of Pittsburgh, are seeking relief from a an accommodation in the Affordable Care Act that they believe violates their religious freedom.
At issue is a provision involving coverage for birth control for students and employees of religious non-profits such as schools and hospitals. Employers with religious objections to contraception can opt out if they notify their insurer or the government, which would then provide contraceptives directly. Bishop Zubik and others argue that the notification itself violates their religious freedom because it essentially requires them to sign off so their employees and students can get birth control.
It’s a controversial case with strong advocates on both sides, and a four-four decision wouldn’t help any of them, Mr. Tobias said. Rather than create a precedent, it would allow lower court rulings to stand, and that can lead to a patchwork of different laws around the country, Mr. Tobias said.
“You like to have as much uniformity nationally as you can, and you like to have some final resolution. Otherwise you’re wasting judicial resources and the resources of the [petitioners] who want their decisions final,” he said. “It’s not the end of the world but it’s serious to the litigants and it may affect a lot of people.”
Washington Bureau Chief Tracie Mauriello: tmauriello@post-gazette.com; 703-996-9292 or on Twitter @pgPoliTweets.
First Published: March 22, 2016, 11:42 p.m.
