Today I emailed Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker regarding the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court:
Dear Senator —,
(Intro paragraph personalized for each senator)
I read today that seven of your Republican Senate colleagues had agreed to meet with Judge Merrick Garland regarding his appointment to fill Justice Scalia’s position on the Supreme Court, but I was dismayed to read that you were not one of them. I understand the Republican party line that the voters should have input on this via the upcoming election, but I feel it sets a dangerous precedent, one which has the potential to cripple future Supreme Courts by promoting 4-4 deadlocks.
However, let’s take that issue off the table. Judge Garland is a moderate liberal who had bipartisan support during his previous confirmation. As you tend to be more moderate than most of your Senate colleagues–on both sides of the aisle–having Judge Garland on the Court shouldn’t seem like a horrible option, especially compared to what might happen if you wait.
If Secretary Clinton is elected, she will most certainly nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court, and that liberal will very likely not be moderate at all. As polls show her beating Mr. Trump handily in a general election contest, it seems to me that Judge Garland is a better choice for Republicans than any future nominee. If, however, Donald Trump is elected, the uncertainty regarding the type of person he would nominate should sound alarms. As he is the candidate who will say anything to get support, I don’t think he can be trusted to nominate a conservative either. I can understand stalling if you think your party will end up with an open convention where you can nominate someone reasonable to head the party ticket–Any interest?–but if you think, like I do, that Clinton and Trump are the likely nominees, then stalling on this nomination is not in the country’s best interests.
Thanks for your hard work in the Senate.
Thanks for reading.