Subject: Today from the Constitutional Responsibility Project
From: Natalie Raps <[email-masked]>
To: Natalie Raps <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:07:58 +0000

Today in the call for a full, nine bench Supreme Court: Former supporters of Sen. Grassley will travel to Washington to urge him to do his job, new polls showcase eroding support for Senate GOP in key states, while reports continue to showcase Garland as a qualified and fair jurist.

Former Sen. Grassley supporters travel to Washington to tell the Senator that he has lost their vote over his Supreme Court obstruction.
Tomorrow, MoveOn.org<http://moveon.org/> Political Action, Americans United for Change, We Need Nine, and the Constitutional Responsibility Project will bring Iowa voters and former supporters of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to meet with the Senator to urge him to do his job and give Chief Judge Merrick Garland a hearing and an up-or-down vote. On Wednesday, these Iowans will hold a press conference with Senate Democrats calling for immediate Senate action on Chief Judge Garland's nomination.

The delegation builds on a major campaign by MoveOn.org<http://moveon.org/> to hold Sen. Grassley accountable. Former supporters of Senator Grassley from Iowa traveling to DC this week include the below:

Deborah Jon Holley, produce farmer, Nevada, Iowa: "For so many years, I deeply admired Sen. Grassley's fairness and integrity and really believed in him. My entire family has always strongly supported Senator Grassley. But I'm frankly outraged by Senator Grassley's decision to refuse to consider the president's Supreme Court nominee. For me, this decision is the last straw."

Jack Donovan Lehmkuhl, bartender, Iowa City, Iowa:  "I'm a Republican just like the rest of my family, and my family has always supported Senator Grassley--since his very first election. I volunteered for Senator Grassley to help get him elected even before I could vote...But Senator Grassley is not being honest with us...I feel betrayed by Senator Grassley, and he's lost my support."

Vickie Bouska, retired small business owner, Hiawatha, Iowa: "If Senator Grassley refuses to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court, we're going to have a Supreme Court that's dysfunctional just like Congress. And this country cannot go on this way where nothing gets done. I have always voted for Sen. Grassley, but I won't vote for him again."

An overwhelming majority of Americans want Senate action on Chief Judge Merrick Garland's nomination.
New polls out today from the Center for American Progress and Americans United for Change show that a majority of Americans, including voters in Arizona, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, want Senate Republicans to hold hearings on Chief Judge Garland's nomination and GOP obstruction could factor into their vote in November. Results include:

  *   69% of American voters think the Senate should hold hearings and an up-or-down vote for Chief Judge  Garland. - 5/09/16<https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/07074815/SCOTUSVacancyPollingMemo.pdf>: GBA Strategies/Center for American Progress Poll [Poll Conducted April 18-25]

*         58% of voters believe the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled this year, including 42% of independents  - 5/06/16<http://aufc.3cdn.net/b3f0af6ecdf090a89a_iim6bnlvy.pdf>: Public Policy Polling/Americans United for Change Poll: [Poll Conducted May 4-5]

  *   53% of voters have more trust in Barack Obama to nominate a new justice, compared to 38% who trust Donald Trump - 5/06/16<http://aufc.3cdn.net/b3f0af6ecdf090a89a_iim6bnlvy.pdf>: Public Policy Polling/Americans United for Change Poll: [Poll Conducted May 4-5]

  *   54% of Iowa voters oppose the Senate position to not act on Judge Garland's nomination; 40% of Iowa voters say they would view Senator Grassley less favorably for refusing to support hearings. - 5/09/16<https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/07074815/SCOTUSVacancyPollingMemo.pdf>: GBA Strategies/ Center for American Progress Poll (IA) [Poll Conducted April 24-26]
  *   68% of Arizona voters think the Senate should hold hearings and an up-or-down vote for Chief Judge Garland; 39% of Arizona voters say they would view Senator McCain less favorably for refusing to support hearings.  - 5/09/16<https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/07074815/SCOTUSVacancyPollingMemo.pdf>: GBA Strategies/ Center for American Progress Poll (AZ) [Poll Conducted April 24-26]

*         66% of Pennsylvania voters think the Senate hold hearings and an up-or-down vote for Chief Judge Garland; 38% of Pennsylvania voters say they would view Senator Toomey less favorably for refusing to support hearings. - 5/9/16<https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/07074815/SCOTUSVacancyPollingMemo.pdf>: GBA Strategies/ Center for American Progress Poll (PA) [Poll Conducted April 19-21]

*         65% of Ohio voters think the Senate should hold hearings and an up-or-down vote for Chief Judge Garland; 58% of Ohio voters oppose the Senate position to not act on Judge Garland's nomination  - 5/9/16<https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/07074815/SCOTUSVacancyPollingMemo.pdf>: GBA Strategies/ Center for American Progress Poll (OH) [Poll Conducted April 25-27]

*         64% of Wisconsin voters think the Senate should hold hearings and an up-or-down vote for Chief Judge Garland; 39% of Wisconsin voters say they would view Senator Johnson less favorably for refusing to support hearings. - 5/9/16<https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/07074815/SCOTUSVacancyPollingMemo.pdf>: GBA Strategies/Center for American Progress Poll (WI) [Poll Conducted April 21-24]

  *   50% of voters say they'd be less likely to vote for a Senator who opposed having confirmation hearings, compared to only 18% who say that stance would make them more likely to vote for their Senator. Among pivotal independents, voters are 23 points less likely to vote for a Senator opposed to at least having hearings on Garland's nomination. - 5/06/16<http://aufc.3cdn.net/b3f0af6ecdf090a89a_iim6bnlvy.pdf>: Public Policy Polling/Americans United for Change Poll: [Poll Conducted May 4-5]

QUICK TAKE: The bottom line is that Republicans just don't have a good case to make...
The Washington Post's<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/09/republicans-are-losing-the-argument-over-merrick-garland-and-its-only-going-to-get-worse/> Plum Line blog explains why:

"These polls and others show that significant numbers of Republicans are contradicting the position of their party, which is that we should wait until the next president is elected to fill this seat. Why is that?...The bottom line is that Republicans just don't have a good case to make...They aren't invoking any fundamental principle that would rally fellow conservatives to their cause...nobody can honestly say that there's anything but naked partisanship at work here."

Sen. Flake: Senate Republicans should confirm Chief Judge Garland if Republicans lose the presidential election.
In an interview with Meet the Press<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/sen-jeff-flake-on-trump-scotus-confirmation-681597507799> on Sunday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) admitted that Senate Republicans' obstruction of Chief Judge Garland's nomination has nothing to do with giving the voters a choice but is rather about partisan politics.

Sen. Jeff: "If we come to a point, I have said all along, where we're going to lose the election or we lose the election in November, then we ought to approve him quickly, because I'm certain that he'll be more conservative than a Hillary Clinton nomination come January."

What Would Nino Do With Garland's Nomination?
Law.com<http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2016/05/08/what-would-nino-do-with-garlands-nomination/#ixzz4806rmOi5> reports:

"We have the views of the late Justice Antonin Scalia himself. In rejecting a motion for his disqualification in the highly publicized "duck hunt" case, Scalia explained that it is unacceptable for the court to proceed unnecessarily "with eight justices, raising the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case." Even one such instance, he said, "impairs the functioning of the court."

Report: Chief Judge Garland is "cautious, measured, and uniquely meticulous."
The Alliance for Justice analyzed Chief Judge Garland's extensive judicial record and found him to be a fair and rigorous jurist who would serve the American people well on the Supreme Court. Check out TheGarlandRecord.org<thegarlandrecord.org> to get the facts on the Chief Judge Garland.

"[Chief Judge Garland's] judicial decisions reflect a judge who is cautious, measured, and uniquely meticulous in his legal analysis. Far from one-sided polemics, Judge Garland's opinions fairly present both sides of each issue, acknowledge thorny and debatable questions when they arise, and thoroughly explain his conclusions."

A look ahead at a sampling of activity by our grassroots allies:

TUESDAY 05/10/16 & WEDNESDAY 05/11/16

Event: Former Sen. Grassley Supporters Travel to DC to Urge Grassley to Do His Job (Tuesday Meeting with Sen. Grassley and Wednesday Press Conference with Senate Democrats)
Other information: The delegation is being coordinated by MoveOn.org<http://moveon.org/> Political Action, Americans United for Change, We Need Nine, and the Constitutional Responsibility Project.
Location: Washington, D.C.
Host: MoveOn.org<http://moveon.org>
Press Contact: For reporters interested in speaking with Iowa voters while they are in Washington DC this week, please contact Brett Abrams at 516-841-1105<tel:516-841-1105> or by email at [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>.

###