SUPREME COURT, U.S. ELECTION, AND AFTERMATH: A recent poll finds that the Supreme Court is influencing voters more than the economy as an issue in the presidential election, according to a Tribune Washington Bureau article.
“About one quarter of the respondents listed the future of the court as an important issue. They were significantly more likely to be backing [Donald] Trump than the average voter and significantly less likely to be supporting [Hillary] Clinton,” the article said.
There was increasing commentary looking to the aftermath of the election. A Kansas City Star editorial suggested that if Clinton wins, President Obama should withdraw his nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the high court and “let the next president choose someone younger and more progressive.”
At EmpiricalSCOTUS, Adam Feldman surveyed a list of potential Clinton nominees to the high court and narrowed them down to five, including Garland. At The Federalist, Ilya Shapiro, a fellow at the Cato Institute, escalated recent talk about Senate Republicans denying Clinton a Supreme Court nominee (see Gavel Grab) in an opinion headlined, “The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Hillary Clinton’s Judicial Nominees.”
STATE ‘JUDGES … FOR SALE’?: Big spending, special interest influence and anonymous donations in state supreme court elections were getting media attention in the run-up to Election Day.
Fumed a Charlotte Observer editorial, “Special interest millions are trying to buy the N.C. Supreme Court.” It warned that “shadowy independent groups” who decline to disclose their donors “are pumping millions of dollars into North Carolina’s judicial races, undercutting the judiciary’s credibility and giving voters the impression that judges and justices are for sale.” The Billings (Mt.) Gazette reported, meanwhile, “Supreme Court race on track to break 2014 fundraising record.”