Duquesne University dean Gormley: Senate refusal could set Supreme Court back years |

Duquesne University dean Gormley: Senate refusal could set Supreme Court back years

© Richard Kelly Photography
Ken Gormley, president-elect of Duquesne University and current dean of its law school.
In this May 1, 2008, file photo, Judge Merrick B. Garland is seen at the federal courthouse in Washington.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
Getty Images
Judge Merrick Garland is introduced by President Obama as his nominee to the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden at the White House, March 16, 2016 in Washington.
Federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, accompanied by President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, steps to the microphone as he is introduced as Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court during an announcement in the Rose Garden Wednesday, March 16, 2016.

If Senate Republicans refuse to hold a confirmation hearing on the president’s pick for the Supreme Court, it could hamstring the high court for the next two years, a Duquesne University legal expert said Wednesday.

Several analysts have pointed out that a 4-4 split could keep the Supreme Court from deciding several important cases during its current term.

What’s less frequently mentioned is that the split would hinder the justices’ ability to decide which cases to hear in 2016, said Ken Gormley, president-elect of Duquesne and dean of its law school.

Add the fact that the next president would have to take office and make a nomination before the Senate could start the confirmation process, and it’s likely the Supreme Court won’t be fully functioning until sometime in 2017, he said.

“It really would disrupt the functioning of the court for two years, not just one year,” Gormley said.

The president and Congress typically move quickly to fill vacancies because of those repercussions and the central role the Supreme Court has come to play in the country’s operation, he said.

“I do think it will be increasingly difficult for the Republicans in the Senate to take the position that there should be no hearings,” he said.

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is among the Republicans who have said, and reiterated Wednesday, that they will refuse to consider an Obama nominee. Waiting until after the election will give voters more of a say in who the nominee is, said Toomey, of Lehigh Valley.

Gormley said Obama’s nominee, appeals court judge Merrick Garland, has impeccable credentials.

“He’s just viewed as a judge’s judge,” he said, “someone who has a sterling reputation. He is viewed as a centrist: someone who is not political at all.”

Brian Bowling is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-325-4301 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.