Tell Bennet and Gardner: No SCOTUS Vote Until 2019

The news broke moments ago—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire.

Two years ago, after Justice Antonin Scalia died in office, Senator Cory Gardner said it was too late in an election year to confirm a replacement. “Our next election is too soon and the stakes are too high,” Gardner said, “the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.”

If those words were true then, they’re especially true now. Tell Colorado Sens. Cory Gardner and Michael Bennet that the Senate must wait until 2019 to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice.

We know what will happen if today’s Senate votes for Trump’s next Justice. Trump’s list of potential nominees includes political extremists far worse than Neil Gorsuch, who has been the swing vote in numerous devastating Supreme Court rulings this year. The resistance to Trump is building toward the 2018 elections, and it’s crucial that voters get the chance to weigh in before Trump gets another lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court.

What’s at stake? Roe v. Wade (Abortion Rights!), Obergefell v. Hodges (Marriage Equality!), Brown v. Board of Ed (SCHOOL SEGREGATION). In a word, everything.

Holding off on nominating and confirming a new justice to the high court is absolutely consistent with what Cory Gardner said two years ago. If he has even a shred of integrity left, he’ll say the same today.

Send a message to Colorado’s U.S. Senators right now: NO SCOTUS vote until 2019.

Thanks for your quick response. We’ll be in touch soon with next steps.

7 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Powerful Pear says:

    Tell Bennet and Gardner: Yes on SCOTUS Vote

    Support the President’s pick for SCOTUS and save the promise of America for all people that; government of the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Why?

      Gardner is a toady who will do whatever McConnell tells him to do. Why would Bennet vote for an anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant and anti-labor right wing zealot?

      You and Zappy are probably the only two on this site who thinks Bennet's vote on the replacement is in play.

  2. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    More sensationalism from ProgressNow Colorado. I doubt Brown v. Board of Education would be in play. As for Roe, much will depend on where Roberts comes down on Roe as being existing, or settled, law. Same for Obergfell.

    Roe may well be history. If so, the pertinent questioning of a right wing nominee may be to not get too heavy into Roe, PP v. Casey, and similar decisions. A substantial percentage of evangelical groups, plus the Catholic bishops conference, oppose the right to use some or all forms of contraception. The significant SCOTUS decision to ask about would thus be Griswold v. Connecticut. 

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      I agree. Roberts might move towards the middle. He's done it before (i.e., the Affordable Care Act). Plus he genuinely dislikes Gorsuch. But most importantly, he wants to protect the institution of the Supreme Court. 

      My guess:  you will see a lot more restrictions on reproductive rights short of outright overruling Roe. Similarly, you will see a lot more conscientious objector decisions when it comes to same sex marriages (i.e., allowing Roy Moore and that deplorable clerk in Kentucky with the bad hair whose name escapes me to refuse to solemnize marriages for gay and lesbian couples) but no overruling Obergefell

    • JohnInDenver says:

      I'm not certain Brown v. Board of Education will be in play … but there could well be an end to other Federal interventions in education, especially in college admissions policy, Title IX, sex and gender discrimination, and increasing allowance for religious schools to get exemptions to pursue their goals while getting public funds.

      Increasingly, the idea of nominees answering questions on specific Court cases or issues is guided by a clear principle:  dodge them. Gorsuch typified this: His response to a question on abortion was "it wouldn't be fair for future litigants for him to share his opinion on cases past, present or future. All he could say is that precedent matters. 'I won't comment on specific cases.'" Precedent may matter — but it isn't an absolute, as demonstrated by Gorsuch's recent vote to overturn 40 years of precedent in order to provide "free speech" to federal employees who don't want to pay agency fees to unions.

  3. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Pear wrote: "government of the people, by the people……."  Perhaps a modest reminder is in order.

    Since the Citizens United decision, corporations have the same rights of free speech as individuals. So, maybe that should read, in part: "government of corporations, by corporations……."   Just sayin'. 

  4. mamajama55 says:

    My Dem Senators: Please understand that it's OK if people call you names. Obstructionist? Yes, you're obstructing the nomination of a likely fascist. Lack of regular order? We're just following McConnell's example. You can stand strong just on following precedent and new norms established by "The honorable gentleman from Kentucky" in blocking Merrick Garland.  

    Your constituents won't care about the name calling. Only Fox News and their ilk care about that, because it's sellable sound bites. Your constituents will only care that you are standing up against the Trump agenda to deny reproductive agency to women,  to deny due process rights to immigrants, to deny equal protection under the law to Muslim citizens and travellers. They will understand that you are standing up for the environment and for the rule of law against one of the most corrupt administrations in history. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.