Steve Flowers: Inside the Statehouse: What 2016 means for the SCOTUS

  As we have watched and participated in the presidential foray this entire year, an equally important event occurred. The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February is a very important event in American government.

  Scalia’s unexpected death at 79 could affect the ideological tilt of the Supreme Court and could essentially have a profound impact on our nation’s public policy.

Mitch McConnell: A legacy of obstruction

  Tuesday marked 125 days since President Barack Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland, an eminently qualified judge, to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate’s inaction on the Garland nomination is the longest a Supreme Court nominee has ever waited for a hearing or confirmation. When the Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), reconvenes in September, the wait for a vote—let alone a hearing—will have grown to 176 days.

  The blame for this unprecedented delay can largely be placed at the feet of Sen. McConnell. Under his leadership, the Senate has refused to do its job of offering advice and consent on the nominee. Moreover, by this and other actions—or more rightly put, inaction—Sen. McConnell has all but sealed his legacy as an obstructionist.

Justice still waits: The nondecisions of an 8-Justice Supreme Court

  Since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, the country has suffered at the hands of an obstructionist Senate that refuses to do its constitutional duty to offer advice and consent on filling the U.S. Supreme Court judicial vacancy. After senators initially threatened obstruction on anyone whom President Barack Obama nominates, the Center for American Progress released an issue brief that estimated that more than 100 million Americans could be affected by the lack of a ninth justice. CAP warned that if the threatened obstruction continues through two Supreme Court terms, it could damage the Court’s ability to rule on key issues.

  But the nation did not have to wait until the 2016 term to see the impact of the Senate’s unprecedented obstruction. The vacancy has already damaged the Court’s status as the final arbiter of critical legal issues and constitutional questions that affect millions of lives.

Justice waits for a nine-member Supreme Court

  Within an hour of the news of Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing on February 13, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the Senate should not consider any U.S. Supreme Court nominee until the next president is inaugurated in 2017. Since then, most Senate Republicans have signed on to Sen. McConnell’s obstructionist threat, including Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-IA). This dereliction of constitutional duty is unprecedented. The longest it has ever taken for a Supreme Court nominee to reach a confirmation vote is 125 days.

  In 2012, the American people re-elected President Barack Obama to do his job for another four years, and that job includes fulfilling his constitutional obligation to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court. Likewise, the Senate must do its job and “advise and consent” on the nominee. The Constitution contains no exception to those obligations for presidential election years.

The Supreme Court vacancy shines a spotlight on the judicial vacancy crisis

  It has been two weeks since the death of a conservative judicial titan: Justice Antonin Scalia. With the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee vowing for the first time in American history to not even consider a president’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, it is possible that the Supreme Court could have just eight members until 2017—well into the Court’s next term. If that happens, many Court observers predict that the justices will split their votes 4-4 on many of the most controversial cases. A tied vote would mean that the lower court rulings stand, even when the lower courts disagree over how to interpret important constitutional rights.

Charles C. Haynes: Justice Scalia’s disastrous decision on religious freedom

  Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, conservative religious and political leaders have lavished praise on the long-serving justice as a champion of religious freedom.

  Alan Spears, head of the Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, hails Scalia as “the most vocal and passionate voice on the Supreme Court for religious freedom.” Sen. Ted Cruz warns, “We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of Americans.”

  But surely this is either a case of selective amnesia or wishful thinking.

Charles C. Haynes: At the High Court, rare win for workplace religious freedom

  “This is really easy.”

  So said Justice Antonin Scalia when he announced last week’s Supreme Court 8-1 ruling in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch.

  The case involved Samantha Elauf, an American Muslim who claimed that Abercrombie & Fitch denied her a job because she wore a headscarf to a job interview.

Steve Flowers: Inside the Statehouse: Summer of SCOTUS

  During the summer the U.S. Supreme Court rendered two significant rulings. They were quite different philosophically.

  The high tribunal, in a far-reaching landmark decision, rendered same sex marriage legal in America. By granting all legal rights to same sex marriage they gave credence and official sanction to these unions. Their decisions are the law of the land. This is a significant verdict. The Supreme Court is omnipotent. Therefore, when it comes to federal benefits, such as Social Security, state laws like Alabama’s that prohibit same sex marriage are irrelevant. If a gay couple that was married in Connecticut moves to Alabama they are officially married.