Posted on 03/01/2016 12:00:25 PM PST by jazusamo
There were no signs of a breakthrough as President Obama met Tuesday with Senate Republican leaders pledging to block anyone he nominates to the Supreme Court.
Senate Majority Leader (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) both sat down with the president in the Oval Office.
“They were adamant. They said ‘no, we’re not going to do this at all,’ ” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after the meeting.
“All we want them to do is to fulfill their constitutional duty, and at this stage, they are deciding not to do that,” he added. “They’re going to wait and see what President Trump will do, I guess, as far as a nomination.”
Reid participated in the meeting, as did Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Vice President Biden, who helmed the committee during his Senate tenure.
Asked how long the meeting lasted, Reid said “not very long. We killed a lot of time talking about basketball." The Democratic leaders spoke to reporters on the West Wing driveway about 40 minutes after the sit-down started.
It was the first face-to-face meeting between the leaders since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, which set off a partisan battle over filling his vacancy on the high court.
McConnell has said he would reiterate his objections to taking up any nominee Obama puts forth. He and other top Republicans say the vacancy should be filled by the next president.
Before he traveled along Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, McConnell told House Republicans at their weekly meeting he’s standing by his promise to not hold hearing or votes on an Obama nominee.
“Whether everybody in the meeting today wanted to admit it, we all know that considering a nomination in the middle of a heated presidential campaign is bad for the nominee, bad for the court, bad for the process, and ultimately bad for the nation," Grassley said in a statement.
Scalia was the leading conservative voice on the bench, and an Obama replacement could shift the ideological balance of the court for decades.
Obama has said it’s his constitutional obligation to nominate a replacement and has suggested leaving Scalia’s seat empty could erode the court’s credibility as an institution that’s insulated from partisan politics.
The president “made it very clear” in Tuesday's meeting that he would consider any nominees recommended by McConnell and Grassley, according to Reid. But the GOP leaders did not offer up a list of names.
Asked what leverage Democrats have to force a vote, Reid indicated Democrats would continue to shame Republicans over their stance.
“We have that nasty little Constitution, which says they are obligated to hold hearings and they are obligated to vote," he said. "They swore to uphold the Constitution. They’re not doing that. They are walking away from that.”
Reid added that Obama's nominee "should be coming very quickly."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest reiterated that senators have a standing offer to recommend names to the president before he makes a decision.
“The president gave everyone in the room, Democrats and Republicans, the opportunity to put forward their suggestions for Supreme Court nominees,” Earnest told reporters. “The offer was not a one-time-only offer. ... They certainly know how to reach the White House.”
Even as the standoff persists, Obama is continuing to comb through materials about potential nominees. Senior adviser Brian Deese was tapped to lead the selection process on Monday, alongside White House counsel Neil Eggleston.
The White House is working to show that it’s taking a serious and deliberate approach toward picking a nominee, an effort to contrast with Republicans’ quick decision to block Obama.
Earnest indicated Obama did not expect the meeting to change anyone’s mind.
“The meeting was pretty straightforward," he said. "No one represented that he was about to change his position.”
But he stressed that Obama believes it’s his “responsibility to consult intensively with Congress before making a lifetime nomination to the Supreme Court."
“The president felt it was important, even in an election year, to continue that consultation.”
Republicans, however, have been quick to note past comments and actions by the president and other Democrats that they say show there’s precedent for their decision.
GOP leaders have frequently cited a 1992 floor speech by Biden, who said then-President George H.W. Bush should wait until after the fall elections to put forth a hypothetical nominee.
"We will reiterate that the American people will have a voice in the vacancy on the Supreme Court as they choose the next president who in turn will nominate the next Supreme Court justice,” McConnell said early Tuesday on the Senate floor. “We will observe the ‘Biden Rule.’ ”
Obama and his allies are hopeful that Senate Republicans will back off their stance under pressure from politically vulnerable senators who are facing scrutiny at home over McConnell’s refusal to consider a nominee.
Grassley himself faces reelection in November and is expected to cruise to victory. But former Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge (D) announced last week she is considering challenging the longtime senator, a sign his Supreme Court stance could cause political difficulties in his home state.
That argument could be amplified if Donald Trump emerges as the Republican Party’s inevitable presidential nominee after Super Tuesday primary contests.
“Kind of amusing, the GOP is making their vulnerable incumbent senators walk a plank on SCOTUS in the hope that Trump might get to pick,” tweeted former Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer.
Updated at 2:19 p.m.
Pffffffft. Since when has Obama ever believed such a thing?
That's what was missing from the meeting ... if McConnell does not promise to keep the Senate open until Inauguration Day ... the threat/commitment not to hold a confirmation hearing is meaningless.
“There were no signs of a breakthrough as President Obama met Tuesday with Senate Republican leaders pledging to block anyone he nominates to the Supreme Court.”
But you forgot to grow a brain.
You see, by actively opposing the front-running candidate of YOUR party for President, you are thus making a Clinton victory more probable. What are you going to do starting next January, refuse to have a hearing for an appointment to the Supreme Court for 4 years?
Get with the program: ABC. ANYBODY BUT CLINTON!!!!! Otherwise, this posturing is meaningless.
“All we want them to do is to fulfill their constitutional duty, and at this stage, they are deciding not to do that,” he added. “They’re going to wait and see what President Trump will do, I guess, as far as a nomination.”
Constitutional duty? They have NO duty to approve of the nominee, nor one to actually hold hearings. They must only advise and consent (the latter only if they feel like it). Advising President Obama to send someone who actually respects the original meaning of the Constitution, and to NOT consent until he does (which will be never).
Oh, and I can’t wait until Trump appoints Cruz as the replacement for Scalia. Or, maybe, he makes Cruz the AG so that Hillary and the rest of the corrupt Dems can be prosecuted, and a couple of years later Trump appoints Cruz to replace Ruth Buzzi. How’s them apples, Harry?
Bump! & Bump!
The first megalomaniac actually thinks that the current court has credibility as a non partisan body?
The a*****e actually believes that?
Two, maybe three perverts and a couple of activist judges in their "create law" playground?
Seriously?
Gee, Mitch-—nice to see your testicles have finally descended!
Another result of the Trump effect!
They may have no ba**s, but they aren't stoopid!
Any of the eunuchs up for election next are as good as gone!
Buh bye!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That's like me petitioning Boxer and Feinswein for any sort of support.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Trump’s support made them realize they’ve gone too far. They know that even Trump isn’t enough to protect them if they cave on the SC. They’d be lucky to escape with just tar and feathers.
The audacity of Reid is just unbelievable. It's as if his long history of filibustering Bush nominees who would have passed Senate votes, never happened.
These clowns deliberately refuse to report past Democrat shenanigans.
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.