GOP senator breaks with McConnell in Supreme Court fight

A senior Republican senator said Republican leaders should hold a vote on President Obama's nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

"I would rather have [constituents] complaining to me that I voted wrong on nominating somebody than saying I'm not doing my job," Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, former head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told the Garden City Telegram Monday.

Moran's comment suggests that the Democratic messaging of "do your job" stings some Republicans.

Judge Garland, Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, has been referred to in the media as a moderate. Some moderate. As the Wall Street Journal on its editorial pages pointed out:

"Judge Garland's 19 year tenure on the D.C. Court of Appeals demonstrates a reliable vote for progressive causes, with the arguable exception of criminal law. Two issues in particular make the point: the Second Amendment and deference to the growing power of the administrative state."

They went on to mention specific cases. In another edition they pointed out the following:

... Judge Garland wrote the majority opinion in 22 cases that considered appeals of decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board. In 18 of these decisions, Judge Garland sided with the NLRB's judgment against a company for unfair labor practices."

The WSJ editorial then quoted the onlabor.org website run by two Harvard Law professors as saying, "deference to the NLRB has had favorable consequences for labor and unions."

That WSJ editorial then cited specific cases and followed by saying:

"All of this suggests that Judge Garland's deference to regulation has a decided progressive tilt. It also matters that the current High Court has been moving to uphold the rights of workers not to fund union speech they oppose. The Justices heard oral arguments this year in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assocation that concerns whether unions can command dues payments in public workplaces. If Judge Garland is on the Court, the individual workers are likely to lose, 5 -4."

If the Senate holds hearings on Judge Garland's nomination, I fear that those RINOs who on occasion crossover and vote for key Democrat issues will do it yet again. Better not to give them that opportunity. Not holding hearings on a nominee who in their judgment is not right for the country and the Court is another way for the Senate to reject the nominee.

Reminds me a bit about the failed election year nomination of Abe Fortas and George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers who withdrew or was forced out in the face of mounting opposition.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.