Posted on 04/07/2016 11:04:31 AM PDT by jazusamo
As President Obama makes another pitch for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is warning Americans not to fall for the media’s characterization of Judge Garland as a “moderate.”
“I’m sure he’ll repeatedly claim that his nominee is ‘moderate,’” Mr. McConnell said of the president, who is holding an event for Judge Garland at the University of Chicago law school. “Not that he means it. It’s just a useful piece of spin that’s been dutifully echoed across the expanse of the Left and in the media for years.”
The previous Supreme Court nominees of Mr. Obama and President Bill Clinton have all been portrayed as moderates, although their records prove otherwise, Mr. McConnell said.
While he didn’t mention them by name, Mr. McConnell referred to Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both nominated by Mr. Obama, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, tapped by Mr. Clinton. He said newspapers such as The Washington Post and New York Times hailed them as “moderate” or a “pragmatic centrist” during their confirmations.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Wow, Mitch must be fulfilling his New Year’s resolution so say one conservative thing a year.
Said it before, but if McConnell and the Senate hang firm and don’t confirm this nominee, I hope we’ll see a little bit less of the “Uniparty” stuff. There is definitely a difference between the two parties on a lot of issues, even if it is not as large as many conservatives would prefer.
I wonder how long before Mitch caves.
I thought the same thing — this is totally out of character for GOPe Mitch.
“While he didn’t mention them by name, Mr. McConnell referred to Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both nominated by Mr. Obama, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, tapped by Mr. Clinton.”
How did he refer to them?
Grumpy, Lumpy, Frumpy and Bashful?
Am surprised and hope he sticks to his guns.
Good one. LOL!
McConnell is holding on because he is afraid that acting would ensure a Trump victory. By holding back, he can watch it play out and hope it doesn’t.
Funny, that doesn’t stop the likes of him from rubbing stamping them.
And neither are Republican Senate Majority leaders, or House Speakers.
I honestly don't understand that point at all. Are you saying that McConnell is not confirming him because confirming him would help Trump? I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that one, but if what you say is correct, and Trump doesn't get the nomination, we should expect McConnell to confirm the nominee. Right?
What if Trump does win the nomination? What does your theory say McConnell would do then?
So true!
This is a great sign from McConnell as it means that he is confident that Trump will win the election and deny Hillary to nominate someone even more liberal than Garland.
I, for one (and probably begrudgingly) will give Mitch strong kudos IF he hangs tough. So far, so good. Daylight will once more shine through the gap between the two halves of the “uniparty.” I will be more inclined to support the GOP.
Oldplayer
A really nasty scenario is that we win the White House, lose the Senate, and then the new Democrat Senate confirms him before the GOP Resident is inaugurated.
Amen! Let’s hope Mitch keeps his spine intact.
I don't think he's going to. For whatever reason I believe he's going to stick to his guns on this one.
McConnell caving on the Supreme Court nominee would give Trump serious momentum. It would play into Trump’s campaign perfectly. McConnell isn’t going help by giving Trump any advantage.
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.