Posted on 10/09/2018 5:42:33 PM PDT by SMGFan
I’m confused. If he’s chairman, that means the senate has a GOP majority. It’s 2020 before the election and RBG drops dead. Why would Grassley NOT do his job when Trump nominated a replacement? What is his reasoning?
It made sense to block Obama on Merrick Garland, because the vacancy came right at the tail end of Obama's second term.
The dynamics would be entirely different if a vacancy on the court appears close to 2020, because there's a better than even chance that Trump will serve a second term.
Grassley's gone soft in the head.
“What is his reasoning?”
He’s stupid. He wants to be liked by the propaganda organs and the Rats.
Where is her cancer, this time? Cancer treatment at her age is usually just palliative. Aggressive cancer treatment at her age has got to be debilitating.
If Grassley is not willing to do his job as the judiciary chairman, Cocaine Mitch needs to find another chairman! Does Grassley think for one minute that the evil Rats would return “the courtesy” if Feinstein were chairperson?
Grassley, this is war!!! Either man up or go home and put on a skirt!
Only read the first few posts, so not sure what the general thinking is plus several hours later then these posts. Also have great respect for Elders and Men in position. The way he handled this whole things were lucky it shook out like it did. Comes a time when its time to step down for the good of the Country. Some of these people have just been in positions wayyyy to long, and he is just one of many that need to step down pronto by their own choice preferably if not then we need to reallllly work on voting them out.
Supreme Court Justice mortality calculator:
Absolutely true. Remember when the Senate was evenly divided under Bush? The GOP decided to "share" chairmanships even though the VP gave them control of the Senate. When Jumpin' Jim Jeffords made his move, sharing was over and the Dems immediately shut out the GOP from all power positions.
The GOP is stupid to play nice with people who want them eliminated.
Probably because of the Garland flap...would be same situation and perhaps he sees the fight as a potential damage to Trump’s reelection campaign..
Yes, I remember that stupid arrangement in the Senate, the slimey rats pulled a fast one on our dumb@ss GOP senators. :0(
They blocked Garland because they did not like Garland, and they had the votes.
Does Grassley think that if the Dims had the Whitehouse now, had just won the nomination of two new justices chosen by Hillary Clinton, that the Dims would hold off any more nominations by Clinton in 2020??? Someone needs to remind Grassley he would be doing what the Dims NEVER would do - give away an advantage that their votes did not require them to do.
Grassley is the kind of RINO the Dims love, because he will always be bipartisan when they never would be.
2020 is not 2024, so it’s not the same as what the republicans did. The idea is that the president is a lame duck so we are positive there will be a new president, who will have their own pick, and it lets the electorate decide which candidate they want to do the picking.
In 2020, one of the candidates will be the person who already picked the court nominee, and will have been elected to do just that.
Thought Lyndsey was going to chair in 2019. Told Democrat members he was going to remember what they tried to do to Kavenaugh.
Pledges to raise $3million for Rinos and won’t take up the vote. Ditch Grassley 2019!
“What is his reasoning?”
The reasoning is that the Supreme Court justice is chosen by the President in order to be responsive to the voters. The voters elected the President, who serves as the voters’ proxy in selecting the nominee. Bearing that out, Presidents do make a SC picks a major campaign issue.
So, in keeping with that principle, it could be argued that year before a highly contested presidential election, waiting for the election outcome would give a more current sense of voter sentiment.
Grassly is signaling that he is running his committee based on sincere adherence to principles of governance, rather than cynicism and hypocrisy, and that he would apply the same principles he applied to the Garland nomination, when and if the shoe is on the other foot.
Trump has already far exceeded all expectations by selecting two justices in his first two years. He may well pick a third in 2019. If he has to wait until 2020, thats a small price to pay for taking the moral high road.
I commend Grassly for it - AND it is good politics to boot: The people will trust Republicans if they act with integrity. Moreover, having an open spot pending the outcome of the 2020 election will provide a perfect campaign issue for Trump and for legislators running on his coattails.
Trump will get reelected and pick an unprecedented number of justices in his eight years, shaping the courts for generations to come.
We don’t need to get greedy and betray our principles just to get another Trump-chosen justice a year sooner.
This is 2018, so how about we all just calm the bleep down?.
This is why the GOP loses.
Play the game. Be good, not nice.
Stop letting the other side dictate the rules.
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.