Posted on 03/16/2016 11:22:43 AM PDT by pilgrim
Not long after President Barack Obama announced that he was nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, former Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) began signaling that Garland would not be a terrible choice. And, if Hillary Clinton won the White House in November, Republicans may be open to accepting him in the lame duck session over a more liberal appointee down the line.
Yet, that position undermines Republicans' central argument so far that their opposition to Obama's pick for the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the merits of Obama's nominee and is instead just about one principle: the next president gets to pick the nominee.
"That's a tough position to take. I will concede," said Sen. Jeff Flake, (R-AZ) who has said he is among those open to confirming Garland in the lame duck. "The only position I've had is 'hey, i'm concerned about the direction of the court,' and so if we come to a point where we've lost the election, and we can get a centrist like Garland in there as opposed to someone like Hillary Clinton might appoint then I'd go for it."
But other fellow Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee say that is a double standard, they wouldn't support.
"We can't have it both ways," Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) said. "We cannot say 'let the people speak,' and then say 'no, you can't.' If you are going to let the people speak, let 'em speak and honor their choice."
Sen. David Perdue (R-GA), who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, agrees that Republicans could not change their minds in the lame duck session and move forward with Garland.
"I think it is the next president, and I have said that all along. It's about the principle not the individual," Perdue told reporters in a scrum on Wednesday.
When asked if his mind would change if Clinton was elected, Perdue didn't budge.
"No, if you are gonna do this, it's about the principle," Perdue said.
Sen. Roy Blunt, (R-MO), who is on the leadership team, agreed that Republicans could not reverse course now. Blunt also added that he, like many in the GOP, will not even meet with Garland.
"I can barely schedule a call with my son's math teacher yesterday so probably no," Blunt said on the meeting.
Well yes, when the Constitution deals you all the cards on the matter, you can have it both ways.
They wonder why the voters hate the GOPE. 3 weeks ago it was “No way”, now its “we’re split”. Lying / capitulating sacks of crap.
I knew it! Orren Hatch,perpetual traitor to basic constitutional values. Damn the man.
Actually Hatch signaled he would be a good choice a week ago.
It seems someone pulled out their special folders on specific Republicans and convinced them to have an open mind.
what the hell? IF she gets the presidency she WILL be nominating perhaps aS Many as 4 more SC judges anyways- what kind of retarded reasoning is this from hatch?
Damn them all.
That's the ultimate standard for the GOPe, Not Terrible.
They don't even care about best available or good anymore.
If as rumored he hates the 2nd Amendment, Garland is not a centrist. His mind is made up; he is political.
The “cave in” has already started....
I wish so, but even Turtle man McConnell isn’t dumb enough to hold hearings.
We’re being setup again. GOP leaders will swear no hearings then safe seats like Graham will overrule.
Hope they stick to their guns and don’t give that commie bastard a THIRD appointee to the court. After the experience with ROberts, they should put any potential nominee on the RACK and ask SPECIFIC questions about positions on the Bill of RIghts and COnstitution and IMPEACH them if they have proven to have lied.
Flake, by the way, is as liberal as they majority of those wussies.
GOPe faction of the Uniparty muttering about potential narratives to move forward with Obama’s nominee.
So far it’s ‘confirm Obama’s choice because Clinton’s choice will be worse’ is the current narrative proposal.
Are Flake and Hatch up for re-election????
At least Lindsey Graham comes down on the correct side for a change.
This provides a good example of WHY these lying crooks are in Washington to begin with. It certainly is not about the paycheck. Selling out America, and lying to, and not representing, the people of the Republican party who put these scumbags there to represent them.
Why do these people talk like Hillary has already won?
Garland is anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment...
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.