Grassley Opens The Door To Lame Duck SCOTUS Confirmation Of Garland

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) -- the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and thus a major player in the GOP Senate's refusal to confirm President Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- opened the door to confirming Judge Merrick Garland in a lame-duck session, even as he continued to defend Republicans' stance that the successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia should be chosen by the next president.

At a question and answer session in Sioux City Monday, Grassley told attendees that, "It had nothing to do with Garland," but there was an "understanding" that Supreme Court vacancies that opened in up in a president's final year should not be filled by that president, according to the Sioux City Journal.

But, he added, his blockade on considering Garland might lift if enough of his GOP colleagues express a desire to push the judge through after the election. Per the Sioux City Journal:

Grassley said the only way his stance could change is if a large number of senators strongly urged him to consider the nomination during a so-called "lame-duck session" of Congress, during the time after the Nov. 8 election and before the new Congress takes office in January.

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/grassley-lame-duck-confirmation

[NewJeffCT]

1. yeah, the understanding

was between him & McConnell.

[tonyt53]

2. He only opened the screen door. He left the main solid door closed.

[yellowcanine]

3. Guaranteed they will move on it to prevent Clinton from nominating someone else.

No doubt in my mind at all.

[ananda]

4. That's what I was thinking.

nt

[ffr]

8. My thinking too. Their "Uh-oh" moment.

Better to hedge their bets on a conservative nominee, than a full-on liberal HRC nominee after HRC and we democrats landslide the vote in a couple months.

[Massacure]

17. Couldn't Obama prevent that by withdrawing Garland's nomination?

[democrattotheend]

20. Yes, but he probably won't

Unfortunately. Although Garland is looking better to me after I did a bit more research on him.

[a kennedy]

28. D*mn right, they KNOW tRump will NOT be president. JMHO.

oh, and "keeping fingers crossed" AND. GOTV.

[harun]

29. 100% correct

[bigdarryl]

37. Won't matter because the Senate will switch democrat in January

[red dog 1]

5. "but there was an understanding"?

.."That Supreme Court vacancies that opened up in a president's final year should not be filled by that president"?

WHAT "Understanding"?

Grassley is full of shit!

[bucolic_frolic]

6. The "understanding" is that Grassley is confabulating again

inventing gentlemen's agreements that do not exist and never did

His Constitutional subterfuge is a disgrace to all Americans

[Lil Missy]

7. Grassley lies about the reasoning, that the final year of Obama's Presidency is why it's on hold,

When they refused to approve Garland they were gambling that a repub would win the Presidency and nominate a scalia-like candidate. Now that it's looking like Clinton is a shoe-in they are afraid of just the opposite, that Clinton would nominate a liberal judge.

[SeattleVet]

39. When they refused to approve Garland they were gambling that...

the GOP would actually have a republican candidate, and not a loose cannon from the neo-nazi, white-supremacist branch of whatever is left of the 'party of Lincoln'. (Instead of someone in the mold of Abraham Lincoln, they are stuck with someone that is much more akin to another Lincoln - George Lincoln Rockwell, the head of the National-Socialist White People's Party and one of the great influences on David Duke.)

Yeah, now they are terrified that Clinton is going to win and appoint someone that they really don't like. I think that the Garland nomination should go through - Hillary will have plenty of opportunity to nominate several other SC Justices over the next 4-8 years that will more than balance out anything Garland would do before new vacancies occur.

[jmowreader]

47. There actually WAS a National-Socialist White People's Party?

I thought that was just the branch of the white supremacist movement the Illinois Nazis in The Blues Brothers belonged to. You learn something new every day.

[SeattleVet]

50. Yes, there was.

The American Nazi Party was renamed the National Socialist White People’s Party in 1966 or 67. After Rockwell was assassinated by one of his lovely little followers, the guy that took over eventually renamed the thing the 'New Order', which is still in operation, but keeping it pretty low-key.

The NSWPP and the KKK were involved in the "Greensboro Massacre", when an allied group of neo-Nazis and klansmen attacked a Communist Workers' Party protest march and shot and killed 5 people in 1979.

Wikipedia has some decent information about both of these groups, as well as the Greensboro Massacre. I suspect that the 'New Order' are some of the tRump supporters that more recently have come under the umbrella of the so-called 'alt-right'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nazi_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Neo-Nazi_group)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

Be prepared to take a long hot shower if you wade into this particular cesspool, though. Understanding these groups helps to understand where tRump and his followers are getting some of the crap they are spreading around. These are the hardest of the hardcore supremacist slimebuckets.

[Lil Missy]

49. Agree 100%

[OldRedneck]

9. Would serve them right . . .

Would serve them right if, after Hillary trounces The Donald, and Democrats take back the Senate, President Obama announces he is withdrawing his nomination.

Why?

Because, as Mitch McConnell said, we want to let the American people speak. So -- the American people speak and tell the GOP to go fuck themselves . . . Obama recognizes what the public has said and defers to Hillary to name the next SCOTUS justice.

[George II]

10. I would love to see either Obama or Garland himself withdraw the nomination....

....and then have Clinton renominate him in January or February.

Stick it to those butt-holes.

[safeinOhio]

11. Stick it to them

Clinton should nominate Obama to the court.

[George II]

15. That would be even better!

[63splitwindow]

14. Now THAT would be hilarious! And if Garland chooses to retire instead, that would be fine...

AFTER Hillary nominates him. Make those Rethug f**kers do their disingenuous dance for all to see.

[caraher]

12. I've expected this from the start

If they lose the Senate, congratulations Justice Garland. Otherwise, the obstruction remains a matter of sacred principle

[olddad56]

13. If Trump gest to choose, he will probbaly appoint someone like Putin.

[AlbertCat]

16. "understanding" that Supreme Court vacancies that opened in up in a president's final year ...

.... should not be filled by that president


If you pull your "understanding" out of your ass.

It's my "understanding" that Supreme Court vacancies that opened in up any time in a GOP president's term(s) should not be filled until Dems are in charge.

Isn't that how it goes?

Wasn't that all of you guys' "understanding"?????

[LynneSin]

18. Alternative title: Senate Majority in peril for GOP because people are sick of their obstructism

And it's BULLSHIT about the whole 'Don't appoint a Supreme Court Justice during a President's final term'. What is going on is 2 things

#1) GOP are worried that their tenure as the majority is at risk and they need to do SOMETHING. Blocking a judge who once got a 97-0 vote to place him in his current position looks bad that many of those same senators are now blocking him for SCOTUS.

#2) Garland is actually a bit on the moderate side when it comes to judges. Obama selected this guy because of his 97-0 support in the prior vote PLUS many republicans have praised Garland in the past for being a bit moderate. When Hillary is elected she may decide not to continue with Garland and instead find the most liberal judge out there to replace Scalia (honestly payback for when Bush appointed Thomas to replace Marshall if you ask me).

[brer cat]

40. I personally think Hillary should nominate RuPaul.

Justices do not have to be lawyers, you know.

[aggiesal]

19. I can see why they'd want Garland ...

They can see the writing on the wall with a Hillary election,
there is no guarantee that Hillary would nominate a conservative judge
like Garland for a more liberal judge.

So, they'll take what they can get.

Obama should have never nominated Garland.

Waaaay tooooo corporatist, for my taste anyway.

[FighttheFuture]

22. Exactly!!!

[Qutzupalotl]

26. Obama should withdraw Garland's nomination just before the election.

Say he's tired of waiting, and the Senate won't confirm until the next presidency, as they said before.

[democrattotheend]

33. What makes you think he is corporatist?

There is some evidence that he is more conservative leaning on criminal justice issues, but I don't see much in his record that seems corporatist. There is not that much of a record on corporatism issues because he is from the DC Circuit where a lot of what they deal with is administrative agency issues. He does tend to defer strongly to administrative agencies, which right now would have the effect of sticking it to corporations on several important issues.

[aggiesal]

43. Garland says he's ...

unwilling to overrule precedents like Citizens United.
If that's not corporatists, I don't know what is.

He also would not overrule the Shelby County decision gutting
much of the Voting Rights Act.

2 huge decisions that went against liberal interests.

That's pretty troubling.

[democrattotheend]

45. When has he said that?

I was unaware that he had taken a position on Citizens United. If so then I definitely want him rejected.

[aggiesal]

46. Link to D.C. Circuit Court Decision on Citizen's United

Here you go:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-on-citizens-united-and-c

The D.C. Circuit upheld the registration requirements. However, in a notable First Amendment victory, the D.C. Circuit struck down the contribution limits. Why? "Because of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the analysis is straightforward," the D.C. Circuit wrote. According to Citizens United, "independent expenditures do not corrupt or give the appearance of corruption as a matter of law." That means "the government can have no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure-only organizations," the D.C. Circuit observed. "No matter which standard of review governs contribution limits, the limits on contributions to SpeechNow cannot stand."

Notably, the D.C. Circuit rejected the FEC's attempt to distinguish Citizens United, which struck down an expenditure limit, from the SpeechNow case, which dealt with a contribution limit. In other words, the D.C. Circuit had an opportunity to accept the federal government's narrowing analysis of Citizens United and it rejected that narrowing analysis. [font color=RED]Among the judges who joined the D.C. Circuit's opinion in SpeechNow.org v. FEC was [font color=Blue]Merrick Garland[font color=RED], who is now President Obama's nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.[/font]

[FighttheFuture]

21. He's setting up the rubes to take the CONservative Corporate lawyer Obama picked vs.

something Hillary may push, which given current sentiment, may be more liberal than Obama's pick.

[Firestorm49]

23. Fat Frickin Chance

Right, all of a sudden to GOP is going to open its lovely arms to approve the nomination. It's easy for Grassley to sound so unbiased when he knows damn well that he'll never get a consensus. This is nothing more than political posturing. When election time comes, he can now brag about his bi-partisan proposal. And we, the stupid public, are supposed to buy into it. What a joke.

[pansypoo53219]

24. the crybaby party.

fuck the GOP

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

25. I hope Garland has the political sense and the decency ...

... to pull himself out of nomination before the election.

Then, it would be a nice gesture if the new Prez Clinton would nominate him.

[unblock]

27. there's no political sense or decency in that. it would be an insult to obama.

now, if *obama* had the political sense and the decency to do that, and garland obliged by pulling himself out at the president's request, *that* would be a nice gesture.

then, yes, it would be a nice gesture if president clinton re-nominated him, although if i were somehow in her shoes i would be very sorely tempted to nominate someone vastly more liberal.

[progressoid]

30. God, I loathe that sonofabitch.

[IADEMO2004]

41. I second that.

[turbinetree]

31. What a jerk, I mean really what a jerk

all he is and the republican party is, is nothing more than a scam, and now they have a "person" that has scammed damn near everything in his narcissistic life and his now the head cheese. And after reading the article, there was not one question if he was going to endorse a racist of his party and if he was going to vote for him, or if he was going to go around like "all" of them are doing and say that he shouldn't be saying those things, but I'll still vote for him-------------talk about having no character or principles none of them have it, not one of them (republicans)


The only way his "stance" could change is if a large number of senators strongly urge him to consider the nomination during the so called lame duck session.

How quaint I guess the Koch boys and the Chinese communist that are running the major corn factories in the state are worried. The below articles says everything about Iowa in my opinion, and if you want to speak about Swift, that's another item on the list:

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/02/the-trouble-with-iowa/

[MRDAWG]

32. Pull the Garland nomination Oct 1st! If Trump wins, then no lame-duck will occour. **

*

[LanternWaste]

34. better the devil you know, they might say.

Clinton could come out of the gate in January with enough political capital left-over from the drubbing she's about to give Trump to nominate a jurist much more liberal than Garland. The GOP would want to avoid that-- better the devil you know, they might say.

[lark]

35. What BS.

He will only hold a vote if HRC wins and he thinks she will appoint someone more liberal and younger, period the end.

[Hav]

36. How the hell does that even make sense?

There is somehow an understanding that a President in his last year shouldn't nominate a SC judge (special rule for Obama, I get it). But then, just weeks before the President actually leaves, it would be ok to consider his pick...when, let me get this right, when all year it was argued that it should be up to the voters and the next President to determine the SC judge?

[CincyDem]

38. I'd love to see HRC appoint someone younger and more liberal than Garland...

...not that she will. But we can hope can't we ?

And at the same time, I'm sure the Republicans will invoke the second clause of that "last year" nomination rule they came up with. You know, the one that says they don't have to consider HRC's nominees because she might not win a second term and, well...you know...the American people deserve to only have judges nominated by presidents that really going to be there for the full 8 years. lol

Unfortunately, I can actually hear McConnell trying to make that case. What an asshat.

[AngryAmish]

42. They only legitimate objection to the nomination is that not every Justice should have an Ivy League

Background. It creates an intellectual monoculture.

But the domination of America by the Ivy's will not end.

[63splitwindow]

44. For those from Iowa- is Grassley as slow-witted as he sounds? He sounds literally low IQ to me.

[jmowreader]

48. I only wish Stephen Reinhardt wasn't 85 years old