5

GOP leadership disagrees on whether they’d try to confirm a SCJ in 2020

1 comments, 111 views, posted 7:53 am 10/10/2018 in Politics by LordViscera
LordViscera has 18573 posts, 2658 threads, 821 points, location: 1123 6536 5321
Jarl of Glencoe

If they don't want to look like the other side of the insanity coin, they need to be consistent in their stance. Either refer back to the previous policy and wait for the election (which would be the strategic thing to do to ensure Trump gets re-elected) or risk looking like political hacks like the Dems look right now.

Fresh off the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, questions arose about what Republicans might do if another vacancy opens on the court in 2020 — and Republican leadership doesn’t agree on what they’d do in that situation.

In 2016 Democrats attempted to fill the vacancy resulting from the passing of former Justice Antonin Scalia. Then-president Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, but Republicans used their majority to prevent Garland from even getting a Senate hearing. He never had a shot of being confirmed.

At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the American people should have a say in the direction of the court, meaning no judge should be confirmed until a new president is elected.

“One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy,'” McConnell famously said in August 2016.

This week, McConnell left open the possibility that Republicans could confirm a nominee even in an election year, saying it wasn’t about the fact that it was an election year; rather, it was about which party was in control of Congress.

“The Senate in the hands of one party and the White House in the hands of another in a presidential election year,” McConnell said, according to the Washington Examiner. “That is what we had in 2016.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has a different perspective on the issue.

Grassley told Fox News on Tuesday that the committee would not take up a Supreme Court nomination in an election year if he is still the chairman.

His reason? Because of what the party did in the case of Merrick Garland’s nomination.

“Because I pledged that in 2016,” Grassley said. “That’s a decision I made a long time ago.”

Extra Points Given by:

Vormid (5)

Comments

0
7:56 am 10/10/2018

LordViscera

and btw, if Merrick Garland had the qualifications and (imo) rules on originalism standards, I would have no issue with his being renominated

Add Comment

via teoti, or register to add a comment!