GOP showing signs of backing down from vow to block Obama SCOTUS pick

The Washington Times ^ | 02/16/16 | Dave Boyer and Stephen Dinan

[Enlightened1]

SenateJudiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, didn't rule out 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," Mr. Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. "In other words, take it a step at a time."

Asked whether he thought the controversy over filling the court vacancy might endanger his re-election chances this fall, Mr. Grassley said, "I think I have a responsibility to perform, and I can't worry about the election. I've got to do my job as a senator, whatever it is. And there will be a lot of tough votes between now and the next election."

His comments appeared to be a softening from a statement shortly after Justice Scalia's death, when Mr. Grassley said it was "standard practice" not to nominate or confirm candidates for the Supreme Court in an election year.

"It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice," Mr. Grassley said in a statement Saturday.

Sen. Thom Tillis, North Carolina Republican, voiced caution about blocking any Obama nominee automatically.

"I think we fall into the trap if [we] just simply say, sight unseen, we fall into the trap of being obstructionists," Mr. Tillis said on Tyler Cralle's radio show.

[treetopsandroofs]

“WOULD THE PRESS STEER YOU WRONG?”

There are many here who, if the headlines aren’t DIRECTLY related to politics, are quite happy to believe every word Big Media excretes, and to condescendingly deride any and all here who might question the story as published.

[Auslander154]

Cruz is the only man I trust to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court that is a textualist and originalist like Scalia.

And for the last time, ( to the Trumpsters out there; not you, JediJones) Roberts was not appointed by Cruz. He was appointed by Bush because Bush did not want to fight for a real conservative. Cruz had to go along.

[T-Bone Texan]

Suzy, I think we’re past the point of flooding phones.

There is a war on, and “our side” has turned against us. It is now overtly a mad dash for money and power for many Republican politicians, just like it has been for leftists for many years now.

We’re surrounded. We’re embattled.

[Auslander154]

It’s not that I hate Trump. I just have no idea what he will do once in office. For all I know he would appoint the same kind of judge that Obama would.

What I don’t understand is the blind trust in a man who just is not a conservative.

[ripley]

Seems like Republicans are loathe to take on the leftist bullies who will do anything to further their international agenda.

(One wonders what some of the soldiers would say about it who stood up and gave their lives to fight what Progressives are doing to the United States.)

IMHO

[AFreeBird]

The two people he named at the debate seemed pretty conservative. Whether he knew of their records personally, is immaterial. Any president, or successful CEO, is going to pick good people to advise them. And listen to them before making a decision.

Donald doesn’t strike me as the kind of man that would hire yes men. Ultimately, in his business, the buck really did stop with him.

You know, we’ve voted for people who we thought, because they told us, we knew what they were going to do when they got into office.

How’s that been working out for us?

Trump doesn’t NEED this job. Not even for ego like so many believe. He’s going to take a pay cut, and lose a lot of personal freedom that he’s enjoyed his whole life.

I see a man who’s made it, in one of the toughest markets in the world for his business. Who’s seen the petty politicians at work, time and time again.

He’s got kids and grandkids; loves this country (of that I have no doubt); He’s putting himself on the line.

[i_robot73]

Go ‘Swedish Chef’ on ‘em? /s

Concur. But, it wouldn’t be the stupid party if they didn’t show their hand before the 1st bet was placed, would it?

So, instead, you have now conflicting messages and the base upset at the conflict. The only ‘losers’ being We the People, who, more likely, get saddled with another Buzzy while the good ol’ boy network continues the party on the taxpayer dime.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Run GOOBers! Run!

[SuzyQue]

T-Bone, I tend to agree, but lacking a better plan, I’m doing this.

Anybody comes up with a better plan, let me know.

[SuzyQue]

You can’t possibly be that obnoxious. But, there’s the proof right there in black and white.

[SuzyQue]

What’s that old Mark Twain saying...something about “if voting was effective, they wouldn’t let us do it”?

[SuzyQue]

Wow, sorry about your senators.

[SuzyQue]

So, what course of action do you recommend we take?

[AFreeBird]

The top Picture on the right. I have one just like it. I held my camera above my head as we were walking down Pennsylvania Ave.

Yea, I’m one of those hicks.

[butterdezillion]

In short, they can act like it’s a DOJ FOIA request.

Turnabout is fair play.

[butterdezillion]

I think we should call them and tell them they should only even CONSIDER checking into Obama’s nominee AFTER the hole in our south-facing radar is mended. NOTHING should be done by Congress until that is done.

And then they should give Obama’s nominee the same timely consideration that Eric Holder gave Congress on their subpoenas...

[RummyChick]

If Republicans sell us out..I hope the next President makes a move to add more Justices to the Supreme Court.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

"It wasn't that long ago that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were also dissin' large groups of stupid vulgarian hicks..."

This will be a bit complex for a Trump supporter to take in. But on the off chance you're educable, I'll give it a try.

It is possible for two people so say approximately the same thing in two different situations, and for one of them to be right while the other is wrong. For example, Pelosi was wrong to call Tea Partiers vulgarians. But I am correct in calling Trump supporters fools and dullards.

As for your claim that crowd size is an indication of anything other than the ability to attract some type of mob, I present the following. Now to the simple Trumpanzee, I will be seen as comparing Trump to Hitler....which is of course wrong. First, Trump isn't advocating genocide. And second, Hitler was probably quite a bit smarter. But I shall present the illustration nonetheless.

Warmest Personal Regareds,
Hank

[inkfarmer]

"We believe it is the obligation of the next president of the United States to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia. Such a dramatic shift in the balance of the court, so close to an election, should carry with it the voice of the people."

How republicans can win the supreme court battle

[JME_FAN]

Will somebody tell me what is going on? Didn’t senator harry reid and then senator obama block president george bush’s judge nominees? Why are our guys not doing the same?