President Obama, apparently nearing a decision on a Supreme Court nominee to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, told CNN that he would choose someone “who should be a consensus candidate,” according to The New York Times.
Varying sides have begun taking to the airwaves over the vacancy and the vow by Senate Republican leaders to blockade Obama’s upcoming nominee. On Monday, Justice at Stake decried as a “political attack,” mirroring others in the states, new advertising by the Judicial Crisis Network critical of a potential Obama nominee, Judge Jane Kelly.
That campaign drew other critiques. At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern wrote, “The Smear Campaign Against Potential SCOTUS Nominee Jane Kelly Is an Attack on the Constitution,” and at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser wrote, “The War Against Obama’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees Takes An Ugly, Offensive Turn.”
Meanwhile Garrett Epps had a commentary in The Atlantic titled, “Will Partisanship Undermine the Judiciary? GOP senators want political parties, and not the president, to appoint the next Supreme Court justice. But history shows a more noble way.”
What other fallout will result from a struggle over the high court vacancy? The Associated Press reported, “More than 30 judicial nominees could end up as collateral damage in the election-year fight over President Barack Obama’s effort to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court and Senate Republicans’ steadfast opposition.”
In at least one instance, however, a Republican senator said he would not stand in the way of a home-state judicial nomination. “Johnson Won’t Block Obama Appeals Court Nominee,” Wisconsin Public Radio reported.