Posted on 03/20/2016 3:06:28 PM PDT by Kaslin
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told CNN’s Dana Bash today that the Senate would not confirm Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Obama earlier this week, in the lame duck session. Senate Republicans have been adamant that the next president, whoever that may be, should decide this nomination. This has drawn the ire of Democrats who feel that Republicans are skirting their constitutional obligation to advise and consent on judicial nominations, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn’t say the Senate must consider a nominee upon recommendation by the president. Yes, Senate Republicans can sit on their hands during this process–and that appears to be what they’re planning on doing for the time being:
"I can't imagine that a Republican majority Congress in a lame duck session after the American people have spoken would want to confirm a nominee opposed by the NRA, the NFIB, and the New York Times says would move the court dramatically to the left," McConnell said. "This nomination ought to be made by the next president."
He also criticized Garland, arguing that opposition to his nomination from the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses shows he's too liberal.
Asked if he's ruling out the possibility of a lame duck confirmation entirely, McConnell said: "Yes."
Democrats are prodding the GOP to give Garland a confirmation vote.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called on Republicans to "man up and do it now" in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." He also predicted that McConnell will back off his pledge not to give Garland a vote.
"Mitch McConnell has said a lot of things. But his Republican senators are not going to go over that cliff with him. They're not going to do it. As I told Merrick Garland, 'This is going to break. You're going to become a Supreme Court justice.' "
Mitch McConnell rules out confirming the #SCOTUSnominee in a lame duck session https://t.co/Jswi1dw9Rt #CNNSOTU https://t.co/JGcejSB7IF— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 20, 2016
There is a bit of debate though regarding a secondary protocol for Republicans if it looks like Hillary is going to be the next president of the United States. Garland is very sketchy on gun rights, but he’s also upset liberals too in some of his decisions. He certainly would be more of a centrist than any of the nominees a Clinton White House would send to the Senate, so maybe there is a scintilla of truth in what Reid says if things start to look dire towards the end of this election year. Conservative commentator George Will noted that the GOP’s opposition to Obama’s nominee pretty much isn’t defensible, and that we shouldn’t trust a hypothetical Trump White House with their judicial nominations either:
There is every reason to think that Trump understands none of the issues pertinent to the Supreme Court’s role in the American regime, and there is no reason to doubt that he would bring to the selection of justices what he brings to all matters — arrogance leavened by frivolousness.
Trump’s multiplying Republican apologists do not deny the self-evident — that he is as clueless regarding everything as he is about the nuclear triad. These invertebrate Republicans assume that as president he would surround himself with people unlike himself — wise and temperate advisers. So, we should wager everything on the hope that the man who says his “number one” foreign-policy adviser is “myself” (because “I have a very good brain”) will succumb to humility and rely on people who actually know things. If Republicans really think that either their front-runner or the Democrats’ would nominate someone superior to Garland, it would be amusing to hear them try to explain why they do.
At the same time, I bet there are a few Republicans who are willing to roll the dice on centrist nominees, yet when it comes to the Second Amendment; Garland teeters on either end of the fence. This is about civil rights, and Garland surely has what appears to be a decidedly anti-gun record. Do we settle with him, or someone much, much worse from Clinton land? Either decision looks bad, but the GOP may have to grapple with choosing the lesser to two evils.
Attaboy
I’m thinking McCnnell wants to hold a hearing really bad.
But with Trump out there winning primaries, McConnell is scared out of
his mind.
YAY!
GOP is just following the Biden SCOTUS rule...
The dems need to quit their bitching...
If Trump gets the GOP nomination Mitch had better confirm Garland fast!
He is better than any judge President Hillary will appoint.
McConnell is just shining us the GOP base until after the primaries. Then he’ll allow Garland to be confirmed. Book it.
Why don't I believe a syllable of what McConnell says?
GOOOOOOD!
Great-but I wonder who made him a deal he couldn’t refuse-whatever they have on him must be picante y mugroso...
Maybe they can have a vote to say he’s confirmed if they don’t have a vetoable vote in 60 days to say he’s not confirmed.
They have a ways to go to regain my trust. This is an important step if I they actually stick to this promise and don’t confirm.
After the election, look for this guy to fold...
This is now, then is later.
His point that they are just following the biden rule is fine, but he and the republicans really need to start making the public aware of just how liberal and anti-consitution this judge is, and therefore that he doesn’t deserve to even be given a hearing or consideration-
The left is winning the public relations battle on this by painting the judge as a ‘moderate’ and painting the republicans as obstructionists and a do nothing congress- Even fox news is jumping on this bandwagon- painting mitch and the republicans as hypocrites- People aren’t even aware of how liberal this judge really is- and mitch and crew coudl really start helping their case by citing the facts as their reason for not even considering him
McConnell Isn’t Budging On Garland Nomination— YET,
Won’t Hold Confirmation Vote- YET!
Did his Overlords give him permission to stand firm? What kabuki theatre. We shall see.
That or worse. Maybe they’re figuring Hillary will win (Trumps fault you know) and then having her appoint Obama to SCOTUS.
Whenever McConnell develops a spine, the alarm bells should be going off!
I wish the Senate Republicans would hold hearings, then vote Garland down as unqualified and be done with it. That would take a Democrat campaign issue completely off the table.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll March 3-6, 2016. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
“The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has opened a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. After Obama nominates someone to replace Scalia, do you think the Senate should hold hearings and vote on whether to accept the nomination, or should the Senate NOT hold hearings, which would block the nomination and leave it to the next president?” Options rotated
Should hold hearings: 63%
Should not hold hearings: 32%
Unsure: 5%
http://www.pollingreport.com/court.htm
Wait, this IS a “budge”, and an obvious one.
There are hearings, then a vote. Previously McC has said “no hearings”. If he is now saying “no vote”, then one has to assume he means “hearings are on”, lying sack of s**t that he is.
And then there will not be a defensible reason to not vote, and further, to not vote for confirmation.
“What could we do, our hands were tied”.
Stay tuned for that next chapter/episode. This is well established GOP strategy; to back yourself into a corner, fail to foresee the obvious implications, and become forced by events to collapse.
He will cave. He’s just holding for a higher offer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.