Posted on 02/16/2016 2:00:42 PM PST by Bratch
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is leaving open the possibility of holding a hearing for President Barack Obama's choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, amid signs of uncertainty about how Republicans would treat a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he backs Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's view that Obama's successor should make the nomination of a lifetime appointment. But Grassley didn't rule out holding confirmation hearings and a vote by his panel on an Obama selection.
"I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision," Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. "In other words, take it a step at a time."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I just saw the President on the Tv where he basically just said he is going to nominate someone and there will be a vote and the person will be confirmed. He also said he need not do a recess appointment because as he state previously he will nominate someone and they will be approved.
He is getting his nominee come hell or high water.
He is a despicable person.
That’s a dangerous observation around here. Entirely true. But dangerous. Elections have consequences.
I agree. The Republicans have been so weak Obama is encouraged to challenge them again. And because they have been so weak, he has the upper hand in the court of public opinion. They should act like they are seriously considering Obama’s appointment, while delaying any consequential vote until he leaves office.
Did someone pass along a message to Grassley that it would be a shame if he was found at room temperature with a pillow lying on his face?
This is a mistake. The message needs to be very simple. The american people will be de facto appointing the next supreme court justice in november and there will be no compromise by republicans on this crucial duty of democracy. Therefore we will take no action to advance any nominee for the position forwarded to us by obama in any way.
Any other approach leaves us open to political attack that we are only refusing to approve a nominee because she’s a female or a black or a mexican or a transgender or an asian or whatever. Make our position very clear right now, before there is even a nominee, that it doesn’t matter who or what obama suggests, it’s simply not happening till the next president.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
I envision the repubs saying they’re going through the motions, as you say, then pulling a John’s Roberts-type betrayal, saying they had to confirm, it’s an election year and voters might get angry with us.
It’s Lucy with the football.
I hope his fingers were crossed when he said it.
And then they crow about how inclusive and brave they are.
Trump is going to be the next president.
If I’m wrong its Hillary.
Make your choice
My thoughts exactly.
Yes they can do that too. Or they could reduce the number of justices to 8 or increase it to 11 and let the new GOP President name 3 young conservatives.
They are beginning the process of bending over to pick up the soap...
Don’t these gop-e degenerates know how to obstruct? What complicit fools.
If Hillary wins and the Democrats take back the Senate then Obama's nominee is probably no worse than what will get crammed down in January. Otherwise, vote the nominee down on a party line vote and let President Trump or Cruz pick a new nominee.
I'm not completely sure about that.
Best case scenario: Blocking Obama's nominee coupled with a conservative win in the Presidential election and holding the Senate will allow the conservatives to put in someone like Scalia.
Worst case scenario: Blocking Obama's nominee only to have Hillary win and the Democrats recapture the Senate will allow Hillary to appoint the most liberal nominee ever.
Allowing Obama to nominate someone but making it clear that only someone who is no worse than a TRUE moderate will have a chance to be confirmed isn't as bad as the worst case scenario.
There are some advantages to your suggestion. But let’s say obama’s preferred leftist is a black. Dems can then use that pending appointment to motivate what right now looks to be a very uninterested black vote this November. Without the black vote, dems don’t win.
Better to eliminate the political angle right now by clearly stating that, because it is an election year and the american people should decide the appointment, we will not approve anyone obama nominates no matter who it is.
Obama would still appoint a black and the Democrats would have 8 months of sound bites on TV every night about how the evil racist Republicans refuse to even give him a hearing.
Don’t sell us out, Grassley.
“Worst case scenario: Blocking Obama’s nominee only to have Hillary win and the Democrats recapture the Senate will allow Hillary to appoint the most liberal nominee ever.”
I don’t believe this is a practical concern. Voting on Supreme Court nominees requires first a cloture vote (60/40). There is no way dems come out of the Nov election with 60 seats.
Scalia was a known true conservative and an originalist. There is substantial precedent in supreme court nominees that you do not deviate too far from the politics of the justice being replaced. All parties recognize that something close to a balance is necessary. So probably the worst case scenario would be a left leaning moderate.
Right. That’s what we’re heading off by saying right now it doesn’t matter who he appoints. If we wait until AFTER he nominates the black, it’s much worse. And if we never declare but just delay and hem and haw, it will be just as bad.
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.