Does anyone have the Vegas odds of the senate deciding to confirm Garland between the election and January 20th?
So like no case in U.S. history, the Senate Republicans decided that it was too late in Obama’s presidency for him to have the right to pick a nominee for a vacancy on SCOTUS.
It’s Obama’s fault that Scalia didn’t die a few months earlier.
Thanks Obama!
Obama: You dont say.
If the Republicans keep control of the Senate there are two results possible should Clinton win. Hillary nominates a right leaning centrist that garners enough Republican support to be confirmed. This will thoroughly piss off every liberal, progressive and Democrat that fought to get her elected, meaning there’s a good chance she doesn’t go that route. Or she nominates someone easily identified as a jurist the Republican Senate won’t touch with a ten foot pole. In which case SCOTUS steadily dwindles down to the the 6 Justice quorum mandated by law to conduct business.
Grassley: (McConnell whispers in his ear) Actually, there’s no precedent for not stonewalling a female PotUS, so we can pretty much do whatever we feel like.
Liar.
Republicans have no incentive to do so if they keep control of the Senate. In 2018 they only defend 8 seats, while Democrats have to defend 25 seats. Republicans most assuredly believe they will have a Senate majority after the 2018 elections. If they keep control this cycle Democrats will be told to go to hell on SCOTUS noms unless Hillary is willing to put forth a Scalia clone.
If the Senate thinks Clinton would nominate someone more to the left they might move on Garland in the lame duck session. They’ll also have to face the reality that a trump presidency and his pick is never going to happen.
The Rs control 54 seats and Democrats 46. To control the Senate the Democrats need to pick up 4 seats + maintain presidency or 5 seats. so, to be clear, control means 50 seats + president or 51 seats.
@clauscph Grassley’s going to win in a walk so he’s feeling magnanimous.
“If that new president happens to be Hillary, we can’t just simply stonewall."
But it’s okay to do it to Obama tho right?
After all he wasn’t born here, so he’s not a real President.
I guess appointing Bush as president in 2000 was not an example of judicial activism. Ok, thanks, good to know.
Grassley said that the Senate has a “responsibility” to consider the nominee chosen by the winner of the election.
Perhaps someone should inform the good Senator that the election took place in 2012.
Clinton’s nominees would be “judicial activists”?
I’m glad to see the Republican penchant for projection is alive and well.
Why this glimmer of sanity now ?
Grassley isn’t even a lawyer!
This article left out the part where he said, “of course, I’m saying this before the election.”
Talk is cheap. The party of Trump is real.
And it lies like a mofo, from the top down.
I wonder how often, if ever, he’s referred to the Republican nominee as “Donald.”
Note that he says they won’t stonewall. Instead they’ll have hearings and vote down every nominee.
Back in 1976 during Grassley’s first reelection effort I had the opportunity to meet and speak with then Congressman Grassley on several occasions. I said at the time and I have continued to believe that Charles Grassley is the most shallow dimwit holding public office that I have ever meet, and I have meet a lot of office holders and during my 50+ years of political involvement
[Grassley] would categorize Trump’s potential nominees as “strict constructionists” as opposed to Clinton’s preference for “judicial activists.”
Remind me again why we buy into the myth that there is any difference whatsoever between Donald J. Trump and the so-called Republican establishment.