Boozman, Cotton say next president should fill Supreme Court seat

WASHINGTON -- Arkansas' two U.S. senators said Wednesday that they won't consider President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, maintaining that the seat should remain vacant until a new president is elected.

But Sen. John Boozman, unlike Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and some other Republicans, said he'd be glad to meet Obama's choice, Merrick Garland, who is chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"We'd love to visit with him," the Republican from Rogers said in an interview. "I'm not on the [judiciary] committee, so I don't know how far up on the list I would be as far as people he would go to first, but certainly he would be very welcome in our office."

As have past Supreme Court nominees, Garland plans to travel to Capitol Hill to meet with senators. He'll make his first visit today.

A McConnell spokesman said the majority leader told Garland by phone Wednesday that "since the Senate will not be acting on this nomination, he would not be holding a perfunctory meeting, but he wished Judge Garland well."

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., hasn't yet ruled out a meeting with Garland. Cotton, like Garland, is an honors graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

"I believe nominees typically begin their meetings with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee which Sen. Cotton is not on, but if Judge Garland requests a meeting we'll evaluate his request at that time," said Cotton spokesman Caroline Rabbitt.

Democrats maintain that the U.S. Senate has an obligation to hold confirmation hearings and to vote on a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13 at age 79.

Boozman, however, said there's no recent precedent for replacing a judge who dies so close to a presidential election.

"During a lame-duck presidency, judges haven't been confirmed this late in the cycle," he said. "Sen. [Chuck] Schumer has said [it]; Vice President Biden [and] President Obama, they've all agreed with that and expressed that during various Congresses."

"This is something that both sides have followed," Boozman said, stressing that objections to Garland's nomination are "not about who he is or what he represents."

Boozman's decision to help derail Garland's confirmation proceedings drew sharp criticism from his Democratic challenger, former U.S. Attorney Conner Eldridge.

"The people of Arkansas and the people of America deserve a senator who's going to follow the Constitution and do their job and not kick the can down the road," the Fayetteville resident said.

The founding document says the president, "with the advice and consent of the Senate" shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.

Eldridge maintains that Republicans have an obligation to proceed now and not to delay.

"I have not understood, [following] Justice Scalia's death, why the leaders of both parties couldn't sit down and find a judge that they agreed on and couldn't follow the Constitution," he said. "This is just the latest chapter in what is wrong with Washington, which is the complete inability of people on both sides to sit down and do their jobs."

Reaction to Garland's nomination has split along party lines. Arkansas' congressional delegation is all Republican, as are its top state elected officials.

Shortly after Obama's announcement, Arkansas Republicans issued news releases criticizing his decision.

"In a few short months, we will have a new President and new Senators who can consider the next Justice with the full faith of the people," Cotton said in his statement. "Why would we cut off the national debate on the next Justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the populace? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?"

Arkansas' 2nd District U.S. Rep. French Hill defended the Senate's decision.

"Just as it is the president's right to nominate a justice, it is the Senate's right to advise and consent on that nomination," the Republican from Little Rock said. "As I have said before, as we are in the midst of a national election, it is my personal preference that this nomination be left to our next president."

A spokesman for 3rd District U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican from Rogers, said Womack "believes the President has the right to put forward a Supreme Court nominee, just as the Senate has the right not to proceed with confirmation."

Fourth District U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman "believes a nominee to the Supreme Court should not be confirmed until the next president has been sworn in," a spokesman said. "His position is not about Judge Garland, but about principle."

The Republican Party of Arkansas said "the nomination should be left to the voters in November instead of through Obama's attempt to tip the scale to favor a liberal court with his nominee."

Democrats in Arkansas urged lawmakers to give Garland a fair hearing.

"By nominating Judge Garland, President Obama did his job as prescribed by the Constitution. Now the Senate, including John Boozman, needs to do their job and hold hearings and a vote on Judge Garland's appointment," party officials said in a written statement.

"Republican senators, like all senators, were elected to govern. Their refusal to act on the Garland nomination threatens the integrity of the Constitution and the balance of power," it said.

Until the dispute is settled, the judicial system will continue to function smoothly, according to Danielle Weatherby, a law school professor at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

On cases in which the high court deadlocks 4-4, the lower court's ruling will be upheld, but the question -- on a national basis -- will remain unsettled.

"The court will continue to hear cases and will continue to issue decisions, so nothing about the lack of a ninth justice will change that," she said. "Things will keep plugging along. Definitely."

Describing Garland as a moderate, Weatherby said Republicans may end up regretting their decision if they lose in November.

"If the Republicans aren't willing to get behind this one, and the presidential election doesn't go their way ... they could face a much more liberal and progressive nominee" in 2017, she said.

The justices would probably prefer a quicker resolution, according to former Associated Press Supreme Court reporter Gina Holland Shelton.

In an email, she said the eight remaining justices will continue to do their work, but they won't be pleased by a lengthy impasse.

"The system is equipped to handle 4-4 decisions. However, justices are kind of like financial markets. They really don't like political uncertainty and can get fairly temperamental when they are the cause of it. So, it's going to be tense around the building," said Shelton, who covered Scalia and now teaches journalism at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

There is a potential for problems, however.

"There are some scenarios that cause concern. Should a case be filed disputing the outcome of the presidential election -- like Bush v. Gore in 2000 -- we could be facing a significant constitutional crisis. Multiple litigants could file in different jurisdictions, achieving differing results," she said. "If the Supreme Court were split, I am skeptical President Obama and the Senate could agree on a nominee to break the tie before time ran out on his presidency. Chief Justice John Roberts could be standing by himself at the podium on Jan. 20 with no one to swear in."

A Section on 03/17/2016