Why We Shouldn't Select A New Supreme Court Judge Now

This election given that opportunity to have a very long-overdue discussion about the Supreme Court and its role in our lives and how we would like to cordially is only policy with Pres. John Weston thank you for joining us today.

Our guest is Casey Mattix, senior counsel with the Lodge defending freedom and you can be talking with us about why the United States Senate wait until after the 2016 presidential election to hold hearings to find a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in February and 80 C plays a pivotal role on the life team where he has been active in defending the sanctity of human life and holding the abortion industry accountable for its fraudulent use of taxpayer dollars. Casey is also active in defending the conscience rights of healthcare workers Casey. Welcome to family policy matters that they tried me on well it's great to have your own and we are always so appreciative of our allies on the Lodge.

Defending freedom in all the great work that you do not Casey, as you know, following justice glee is untimely and tragic death in February, Pres. Obama wasted no time in putting forth his choice for a nominee to fill that now vacant seat on the US Supreme Court. We talk about that. If you would explain for us how the Supreme Court nominations work, and who ultimately decides who will serve on our nation's highest court.

While you under article 2, section 2 of the Constitution, the president has the power to nominate someone to sit on the Supreme Court and the Senate has the ultimate responsibility to provide consent for that nominee to serve on the Supreme Court, provided what's termed advice and consent and so it's really a shared responsibility between the president and the Senate. And so that's where particular with respect to that. That's for the American people get to to provide their input course. We've had Senate collection recently elected the Senate that we have and it's their responsibility to decide if that nominee or any nominee I will sit on the court and other legal experts have argued that the U.S. Senate should not hold hearings on justice. Glee is replacement until after the presidential election in November is waiting until after the election so important and I think one thing that everybody can agree on is that this is a very unique election season were going through and the American people are demanding to be heard right now and I think it's very important that we not have what would would likely be a very contentious nomination process hearing process for any Supreme Court nominee right now in the middle of the election season like this, the better course of action is for us to wait until this process plays itself out. We have the next president. This is a terribly consequential decision.

Justice glee was the pivotal vote on a number of 5 to 4 issues you know from the religious liberty cases on partial-birth abortion Second Amendment rights. Many others that now that he was the key vote on and so yeah the American people now have an opportunity to weigh in on the scope of the Supreme Court and what they want to see the future of equity. Some of our listeners may not recognize appointments to the United States Supreme Court all essentially for life all on until one of the members chooses to resign for whatever reason.

And so it's it's not just a limited, finite amount of time that they serve but they can serve for many many years.

And so it is a critically critically important process is nominations to be made and scrutinized by the United States Senate before those placements are right. That's exactly right.

This is the Supreme Court is at nine individuals that have an increasing amount of power over our lives not only key questions like a set of religious liberty and and things like that that didn't really impact people on a day-to-day basis that the Supreme Court gets to decide. But there's been a change in the court over the last several decades with her taken more and more the power on at the same time as you said this is a court that is not an appointment of United State Supreme Court is the life your therefore different. As long as you want to remain on the court and so yeah it's very important that we the American people have a voice and who that person is going to be and I think this election gives us an opportunity to have a very long-overdue discussion about the Supreme Court and its role in our lives and how we would like to see the court going to the future OKC one of the points.

ADF is made about the Senate confirmation hearings is that the Senate really has no duty to act on the president's nominations explained that for us. Certainly welded to the president actually has no responsibility constitutionally even nominate anyone in the Senate certainly has no responsibility to do anything with nomination once it's made, the Senate has the responsibility of according to the Constitution to provide advice and if he chooses to consent on a Supreme Court nominee but how it does that, whether it does. That is completely up to the Senate, to make that call. So the Senate has in many previous years you've had the Supreme Court with only eight justices are even fewer for large portions of time variable continue their business are able to lead to fill decide cases here, cases, and decide them so there's no it's not that this is a shutdown right. The United States Supreme Court continues to serve continues to do its work, current justices of the court has said on both sides of what people usually think of is the ideological divide on the court have said that they're perfectly able to continue to do their works was really no rush and instead it did this in a waiting until the next president gives us the opportunity for the American people to speak into this process.

What we've heard some discussions that suggest that this is kind of an unprecedented move that the Senate would wait to forestall or not immediately take action on the presence nomination.

What is the history of the United States Senate with respect to acting all presidential nominations received on the Supreme Court during an election year. It's true, it's really the opposite very very little if any precedent for the for the Senate actually filling a vacancy was created during election year, probably for very good reason because the same sorts of concerns that are animating many media folks today so you have to go back. For example, to 1932 I believe was the last time that anyone was confirmed in an election year and she had to go over elective enough before we actually had FM radio and before the last time you actually had any nominee that was confirmed during election year by a party from the opposite with the president and the Senate were opposite parties. The last time that happened.

Yale was the dominant power in college football know it has been quite a long time. That was the world we were and the last time that an opposition party Senate was actually asked to to to consent to a new Supreme Court nominee to fill safety was vacated during presidential election year that the normal process is to simply wait these things out allow it to the carryover and in the early years of the Republic. You have several examples of that.

Where you had a vacancy created just enough the first few decades after the Constitution had a vacancy created in the Senate said let's wait until we have the new Senate convenes the new president will make a choice and then we can go from there. You're listening to policy matters resource to listen to our radio show online resources have a place of persuasion in your community website. Collecting when you touch on this already, but what about those who argue that the Supreme Court cannot function properly or well with only a justices bit after eight justices that it could result in split decisions and just leave some of these major cases that are pending before the court in limbo, so to speak.

Talk about that for a minute what you think the first point is for people to understand is that the Supreme Court hears a relatively small number of cases they often are consequential cases. But the Supreme Court is very few of them.

Overall, I think I get asked to hear about eight or 9000 cases a year. They hear about 85 to 90 cases a year so you first of all, that's the Supreme Court's casework even since Justice Scalia passed away. The Supreme Court has been issuing decisions is been making orders issuing decisions and is perfectly capable of doing that going forward, and in those rare instances where the court splits 44 that all that means is whatever the lower court decided continues to stand and so yeah that's that's by no means the worst you a terrible scenario for a lower court that is already heard.

The cases already made a determination that decision just continues to stand in the other thing that the court can continue to do that will hold the case over because they think that maybe the new max justice will make the difference. They're perfectly capable of doing one night, one of the benefits of being a Supreme Court would lifetime appointment power is the you could really do whatever you want to do if you want to wait and hear the case. Later you can, as a matter fact and not Roe versus Wade. That's how robust the cited row was held over from one sitting to the next sitting they actually argued Roe versus Wade twice so there's no reason why the Supreme Court can't continue do the same thing if they have a case that they think needs to be heard by a knife just can simply wait for night justice and it's it's not the end of the world. OKC account put this in perspective, what would you consider to be some of the most important cases that are currently pending before the Supreme Court that they could either make decisions on with eight members, or possibly wait and address for decide when that life member is appointed, well, you know, just that a few of them up atop my head. You have the case dealing with Texas's abortion regulation that cases currently pending before the court is one that the court can either go ahead and decide either 53 or 44 orchid to hold that case again until the fall of and as I mentioned would be a nice parallel with Roe versus Wade which was held over in exactly the same way if they decide to wait on that case and of course you have just tomorrow you have the deliberate case cases of Christian colleges and universities as well as Little sisters of the poor that will be heard at the Supreme Court dealing with the Obama care abortion pill mandate and so that's yet another case that you have it made by the court. If it does we'll see if the court decides the case. 5 to 3 or four for, or if it decides it wants to wait on the outcome of the case OKC at this point.

How has the Senate responded to the presence nomination of a replacement for justice glia and you think there's any chance that the Senate may hold hearings before a new president is elected. The Senate has been very clear from from the outset that they will not hold hearings or any vote on this nominee and I expect that will actually hold. I know that it will probably surprise some people to to put that much stock in faith in any national Senate, but that I think they really do from the meetings I've been and from hearing people talk about this on Capitol Hill.

The Senate seems to have have really understood what that steak with this choice and and I think they you know there they are ready to stand resolute on this and make sure that that they hold out, and when wait for the next president to make their their decision.

I think that's ultimately in the interest of all Americans read read if you want to have the Supreme Court not be a political body but actually be an effective check on the power the presidency and the power of Congress. If you wanted to actually be that way than what the last thing you want is a hyper politicized hearing in which you have presidential candidates grandstanding on Supreme Court nominations for television and that's ultimately what would happen it would become a sideshow. That's not how this should be. This is a lifetime decision that should not be made in the middle of electoral politics and be made when cooler heads can prevail and we can sit back and see what is the direction the American people would like for this court will and I think that just emphasizes the importance of the selection not only the election for president but election for members of the U.S. Senate and other races down the ballot, but particularly those two top ballot races because of the gravity of this position and possibly a couple of other positions that may come available on the Supreme Court, OKC.

We are unfortunately just about out of top of this week.

I do want to give you an opportunity to before we end our conversation to let our listeners know where they can go to learn more about your work and alliance defending freedom sure and let me say first of all thank you for all the work that you alter is a blessing to us to build work with some great family policy councils in years is certainly right there among the best answer we are very appreciative for all the great work that you will do it in North Carolina and were happy to build a partner with you on it whenever we can go to the ADF website is ADF legal.org.

If legal.org to find out about the kind of work were involved in both Supreme Court and in the states and around the country will ADF does great work and the feeling is mutual Casey that we are so appreciative of ADF and all the work that you do so. Thank you so much Casey Maddox for taking time out of your busy schedule to talk with us about this very important issue and for all of your great work at alliance defending freedom.

Thank you.

Before we close. I like to invite you to follow the North Carolina family policy Council on Facebook. Just login and find us@ncfamily.org unit into family.org. Be sure to like us when you visit.

In addition, for instant updates on profamily news of interest. Follow us on twitter@ncfamily.org again that at NC family of origin policy matters NC family to listen to our radio show online resources and information about issues important to families in North Carolina website family.org follow us on Twitter and Facebook