Reply to Michael Ramsey on the Garland Affair

7 Pages Posted: 16 Jun 2016 Last revised: 20 Jul 2016

Robin Bradley Kar

University of Illinois College of Law; University of Chicago

Jason Mazzone

University of Illinois College of Law

Date Written: June 14, 2016

Abstract

In The Garland Affair, we present historical evidence to suggest that Senate Republicans’ current plan to prevent President Obama from appointing a replacement for Justice Scalia, regardless of the particular merits of his nominees, is historically unprecedented. The plan thus raises a set of pragmatic and constitutional risks that have not yet been fully appreciated and warrant reconsideration of this plan. Michael Ramsey has recently raised several questions about our constitutional analysis. Here we respond to those questions.

Keywords: Garland, Scalia, Obama, Appointment, Vacancy, Supreme Court, Confirmation, Politicization, Grassley, McConnell, separation of powers, presidential power, executive power, advice, consent, advice and consent, whelan

Suggested Citation

Kar, Robin Bradley and Mazzone, Jason, Reply to Michael Ramsey on the Garland Affair (June 14, 2016). University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16-28. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795723

Robin Bradley Kar (Contact Author)

University of Illinois College of Law ( email )

504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.uiuc.edu/faculty-admin/directory/RobinKar

University of Chicago ( email )

1101 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
United States

Jason Mazzone

University of Illinois College of Law ( email )

504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
46
Abstract Views
430