New Hampshire’s major newspapers issued a swift rebuke to Kelly Ayotte’s decision to put partisanship ahead of her constitutional duty. As the Concord Monitor notes, Ayotte’s “knee-jerk” decision undermines her election year efforts to rewrite her record, and they’re universal in their criticism of Ayotte’s politically motivated obstructionism.
Concord Monitor Editorial: In high court fight, Ayotte is just wrong
In knee-jerk fashion, New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte became one of the first senators to echo McConnell.
… She is not expressing the will of her constituents but the will of her party.
… Jumping on the anti-nomination bandwagon calls into question the sincerity of Ayotte’s recent breaks with her party… Her high court position is wrong, and she should quickly reverse it.
Portsmouth Herald Editorial: Ayotte, many Republicans put partisanship ahead of Constitution
… We find it appalling that New Hampshire U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte and many of her Republican colleagues, have put partisan politics ahead of the U.S. Constitution, by arguing that the Senate should refuse to hold hearings on the president’s nominee to fill the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death Saturday.
…Ayotte, McConnell and other Republicans opposed to filling the position, dishonestly ignore that the people did “have a voice” and “the American people spoke” when they re-elected President Obama in 2012 and gave the Republicans majority control of the Senate in 2014.
Nashua Telegraph (Editorial): Rules are clear on court appointment
The debate about whether President Barack Obama should nominate and the Senate should confirm someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia is an example of politics at its worst.
… The world does not stop spinning in an election year, nor does the Constitution cease to be the Constitution, though you’d never know it from some of the rhetoric that’s being bandied about.
… If Ayotte and other Senate Republicans want to block Obama’s nomination, that’s their prerogative – but there should be hearings on the nominee and, ultimately, a vote.
Because the Constitution shouldn’t be twisted to suit the fancy of any political party.
We’d like to think that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict legal constructionist who derided attempts to read into the U.S. Constitution more than is written there, would be appalled at the quick calls from Republican politicians — including New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte — to obstruct the naming of Scalia’s replacement.
… Conservatives, including all of the GOP presidential candidates, quickly rushed to back McConnell. Many have, in the past, complained about political motivations tainting the confirmation process. Here’s what Ayotte said in a 2010 interview with a conservative legal journal: “One concern that I have overall about the confirmation process is, I think it’s been a very politicized process. And the Supreme Court, frankly, should be above partisan politics.”
We agree, and we wish she still did, too.
Valley News Editorial: After Scalia
The Republican argument, endorsed by New Hampshire’s own Kelly Ayotte, is that no one should be nominated to the court until a new president takes office.
This extraordinary interpretation of the Senate’s constitutional duty to render “advice and consent” on judicial nominations amounts to an attempt to limit a president’s term to three years instead of four…
Moreover, it makes a mockery of McConnell’s 2014 pledge to demonstrate that Republicans could govern rather than merely obstruct government.
