The Chronicle
www.dukechronicle.com
2 | TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016
Duke professor: Supreme Court vacancy ‘huge’ in 2016 election is simply false. Justice Ginsburg is not going to remain on the Court for another generation and neither is Justice Breyer. So I think it is much more likely than not that we are going to have turnover over the next four years. The conflict is that the principle of the Republicans is not the one that they say they are following. What you are left with is partisan advantage which has come in the form of not letting Democrats fill the seat. That is a new low in terms of obstruction and dysfunction.
Rachel Sereix The Chronicle Neil Siegel is a professor of law and professor of political science at the Duke Law School. In 2003, he clerked for Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Supreme Court and served as special council to then-Sen. and current Vice President Joe Biden during the confirmation hearings of current Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The Chronicle’s Rachel Sereix spoke with Siegel about the next Supreme Court nominee and partisanship in the Court. The Chronicle: Do you believe that the Republicans’ argument that a Supreme Court nominee should be chosen after the next president is elected is constitutionally justified? Neil Siegel: I do not. A president is elected to a four-year term, and our current president has about a year to go. The best understanding of historical practice is seen by what the Republicans in the Senate are doing. Never before has one party said that they are not going to categorically consider any nominee regardless of the nominee that the president would put up. In the last 100 years, we have not seen a case similar to what the Republicans are doing now. The principle that they are stating is that ‘the American people should decide.’ They simply want a Republican to fill the vacancy—this is not principle, this is partisanship. People are trying to maximize partisan advantage. What I am worried about is a situation where we cannot confirm anyone unless the same party controls both the White House and the Senate. I think that this would be destructive. The president is under a constitutional obligation to nominate someone. It says ‘shall’ in the Constitution, not ‘may’ or ‘can,’ and it seems to me that the Senate is under a conventional, not a constitutional, obligation to confirm the nominee. It is just a considerate departure from past practice, and it is symptomatic of partisanship on steroids that defines the times in which we are living.
Special to The Chronicle Neil Siegel, professor of law and political science, noted that Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland’s age and centrist views are positives for Republicans, though his confirmation is still unlikely.
Merrick Garland a qualified nominee? NS: He is the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is the second most important court in the land next to the Supreme Court. He is one of the most experienced Supreme Court nominees ever. He has served on the D.C. circuit court now for many years as a federal prosecutor, and he has earned heavy praise along party lines. I cannot think of anyone more plausibly confirmable for the position. He is moderately centrist and follows precedent to the T as far as I know. His colleagues love working for him and feel very respected by him on both sides of the aisle. He has everything that you would want professionally and temperamentally from a nominee. From the Republican perspective, he is more moderate than many possible nominees, and he is also older—he will be there less.
Scalia, but Scalia was one of the most conservative judges in American history. He is also to the right of any other nominees that the president might have considered. I don’t know about a sense of balance—he would move the Court to the left but not nearly as to the left as another Democratic nominee might. In my publication in The Hill entitled, ‘The American people will decide the Supreme Court’s future anyway,’ I argue that there is a factual assumption that both sides are making that I think is false. The Republicans are talking about flipping the Court from liberal to conservative to liberal for the next generation. They are saying this to help make the claim that they have a special warrant to do something extraordinary which is not even considering a nominee. The Democrats as far as I can tell have not been disputing this assertion that this is a really big deal and could flip the TC: Do you believe that Garland’s Court. Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg is 83, centrist views can provide a sense of balance Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is 79, Justice TC: What do you think are the main to the Supreme Court? [Stephen] Breyer is 77—the idea that this characteristics that make Chief Judge NS: He is clearly to the left of Justice is going to flip the Court for a generation
National Academy of Medicine Lecture
TC: What are the next steps for Senate Democrats and President [Barack] Obama to successfully nominate Chief Merrick Garland? NS: This is so extraordinary that I don’t know. Typically the nominee would prepare for hearings and talk to senators on both sides, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. I don’t know what the next steps are. They have to persuade Senate Republicans to at least consider the nominee and so far, they just won’t. It is more likely than not that Garland will not get a hearing, let alone be confirmed. The most likely scenario is if the Democrats win the election with Hillary Clinton being the presumptive nominee, there is going to be a lame duck session after the election in November. The Republicans are going to be faced with confirming Garland, or Hillary Clinton will nominate someone possibly more liberal. There is a possibility that Republicans will forget about what they said about the American people. If the Democrats have both the presidency and the Senate, I suspect that they will confirm Garland and deny Clinton the opportunity to nominate someone much more liberal. It will be quite contradictory to say that the American people shouldn’t decide—we can decide this now. TC: What do you believe is the primary agenda of Senate Republicans to block Garland’s nomination? NS: I think that they want to make it as likely as possible that a Republican president will nominate a Supreme See SIEGEL on Page 12
Get
Kenneth A. Dodge, PhD
William McDougall Professor of Public Policy Professor of Psychology & Neuroscience Director, Center for Child and Family Policy
Understanding the psychological mechanisms of aggression has the potential to solve some of the world’s most vexing problems among families, social groups, and nations. In this lecture, Kenneth Dodge will discuss how his research has improved our understanding of the development and prevention of chronic violence in children and adolescents. Please join us to celebrate with Dr. Dodge who was recently elected to the National Academy of Medicine and learn more about his career and the achievements that led to this honor.
National Academy of Medicine Lecture & Reception
March 23
Sanford School of Public Policy, Room 04 3:00-4:00 p.m. Lecture Reception to follow
Register at: tinyurl.com/DodgeNAM
Sign up for The Chronicle’s weekly newsletter— a compilation of what’s trending for Duke students on campus and in the Triangle.
thebluedirt.com