The Senate Must Vote on Judge Garland's Nomination

While pursuing Facebook yesterday, I came across a post from Michelle Malkin on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The post was a link to an article in the Conservative Review simply entitled, "What Conservatives Need to Know About Merrick Garland."  When I clicked the link, I was shocked to find a one word answer as the first paragraph of the article. It simply said, "Nothing."

Author Brian Darling's analysis didn't get much more informative. The crux of his argument was that because Judge Garland was nominated by President Obama, he is a liberal and will tip the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of the liberals. 

I was shocked because even though I consider myself a Republican with conservative leanings, my reaction to President Obama's pick was far different. I was surprised by how non-controversial the appointment would be. 

Judge Garland has sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit since 1997.  He is currently the Chief Judge.  Because of the location of the DC Circuit, it is the court that tends to hear cases involving Federal policy most often. The court is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. 

In addition, Judge Garland is a former prosecutor who is 63 years old. Not only has he worked in law enforcement, he is not likely to stick around the Supreme Court for a very long time. 

At this point, conservatives point to two cases in which he was involved to ring the alarm bells that he will rob us all of our gun rights. The first is the case that overturned the District of Columbia's gun control law. The case was decided by a three judge panel, and Judge Garland voted for the case to be reheard en banc, which means in front of all of the judges of the DC Circuit. 

The second was a case where Judge Garland agreed that the FBI could retain gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a computerized background check was working. 

Neither case hardly says anything about the Judge's views on the Second Amendment. Yet it is enough that Judge Garland acted in a way displeasing to the NRA for conservatives to mobilize opposition by engaging in the Second Amendment fear mongering. 

Conservatives are mourning the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. The prospect that his seat on the Supreme Court could be filled by an Obama appointee is just devastating to them. Thus, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of announcing that there would be no hearings on any Obama nomination. Instead, the choice would be left to the new president. President Obama has countered with the nomination of a highly respected jurist, who is not likely to stay around for a very long time. The result is that Senate Republicans look far worse than just merely obstructionists. They look like whiny, petulant children. 

One of the most frightening characteristics of the Tea Party movement, and its influence on the Republican Party, has been the uncompromising willingness to shut down normal government functions in the name of promoting conservatism. Faced with very little on the record to challenge a nominee who appears to be eminently qualified, the conservatives resort to fear mongering. Senate leaders should not play this game. Rather, they should do their constitutional duty of allowing the full Senate to give advice and consent by holding hearings on Judge Garland, and sending his nomination to the floor for a vote. 

Immigration Reform Heads to the Republican Controlled House of Representatives

Immigration reform passed the Senate last week with a vote of 68-32.  The issue now heads to the House of Representatives, where it's future is less certain.

While almost 70 Senators voted for the reform bill, the fact remains that only 14, or less than one-third, of Republican Senators voted for it.

Unlike the Senate, the House is controlled by Republicans.  Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is not likely to bring proposed legislation to the floor for a vote unless a majority of the House Republicans are in favor of it.  Although Republicans are in favor of certain reform measures, there is one issue that Republicans may strongly contest.

Namely, the pathway to citizenship for those already present in the country may turn out to be a measure House Republicans won't swallow.  In a way, Republicans may be guided by the politics of self-preservation.  On the one hand, PBS reports that most House Republicans are in safe districts.  This means that if those Republicans vote in favor of a pathway to citizenship, they are more likely to face a primary challenge from a conservative candidate angry over immigration reform than a strong Democratic challenge in the November 2014 elections.

Then, there is the issue of what would happen to the future electoral chances of the Republican Party if millions of Latinos already present in the United States become full citizens with voting rights.  Although it is a mistake to consider Latinos as a single, unified group (Cubans tend to vote differently than Mexicans, for example), in generally Latinos tend to vote Democratic.  In the last election, over two-thirds of the Latino vote went to President Obama.  Republicans will be very reluctant to endanger their future electoral success by voting for a pathway to citizenship.

That is not to say that Republicans oppose immigration reform.  Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal making a Republican case for immigration reform.  Their emphasis was on reducing family based immigration in favor of more employment based immigration.  The two viewed this as the House of Representative's opportunity to make changes to the Senate proposal, more in line with conservative values.  The House, for example, can insist on greater border control measures.  Regarding the path to citizenship, Bush and Bolick would make the civics test for naturalization more challenging.

In the end, Bush and Bolick state that Republicans have more in common with immigrants, such as "beliefs in hard work, enterprise, family, education, patriotism and faith."  Bush and Bolick urge Republicans to stop being an obstacle to reform, "and instead point the way toward the solution."

Of course, there may be a way to push for reform, with providing some political cover for House Republicans.  This is through the use of the discharge petition.  If 218 House members sign a discharge petition, then the legislation would come to the floor of the House for a vote despite opposition of the House leadership.   This is a rare occurrence, as it requires a few members of the majority party to join forces with the minority party in order to bypass House leadership.  In normal circumstances, this would mean reprisals against the those members of the majority party who side with the minority party.

A discharge petition, however, may be exactly what House Republican leaders need to allow immigration reform to come to a vote without making it look like their fingerprints are on it.  That is, if there is pressure from Republican leaders outside of the House to bring the measure to the floor, the House leadership could work behind the scenes to encourage those Republicans in the House who support the measure to sign the discharge petition and force the measure to come to the floor.  Then, the House leadership and the majority of the House Republicans could go back to their districts and claim that they had nothing to do with immigration reform and even voted against it.

This is just one vision of how things could proceed in the House.  As of this moment, it is just speculation.  Steve Benen of MSNBC reports that the House already has a bipartison group working on its own version of immigration reform legislation.  If nothing else, immigration reform may continue to dominate Washington politics for a few months before we know what the outcome will be.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com