Mitch McConnell is not budging.
No matter how much pressure President Obama and Democrats try to apply, McConnell’s allies say the Senate majority leader will never agree to hold hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge, to succeed Antonin Scalia as a Supreme Court justice.
Even Republicans who disagree with him think that McConnell (R-Ky.) will not retreat from that defiant stance. “I don’t see the majority leader changing his mind on this issue. He believes strongly that this should be a decision made by the next president,” said Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of two Republicans to call for hearings on Garland.
Since Scalia’s death, and McConnell’s pronouncement hours later, Democrats have been stunned by the senator’s determined position not to consider any nominee — and his flat-out refusal to extend the traditional courtesy of meeting with the nominee.
They have long viewed McConnell as purely a political tactician who always does what is best for his party’s chances at controlling the Senate. With Garland’s introduction, Democrats began pillorying Republican incumbents for rejecting any Obama choice out of hand just because there is an election eight months away.
McConnell is fully of crap. The people have spoken. They elected President Obama by millions of votes. There was no question about who won. Obama has a Constitutional responsibility to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate has a Constitutional duty to vote up or down.
This stalling is unacceptable. McConnell announced the first week Obama was in office he would work to make him a one term president. That announcement spoke volumes and immediately told the American people to prepare for obstructionism.
The problem with all this is that there will be pay-backs. There will be huge paybacks. Depending on how this plays out will determine how bad. Between Trump and McConnell, the Republican party is painting itself into the land of no return. I resent that. We need a solid, responsible Republican party for America to thrive. The GOP has just been pathetic since Daddy Bush was in the White House.
What’s the big deal? O’Connell is just follow Vice President Biden’s advise. Besides President Obama voted to fillabuster a Bush SCOTUS pick thus essentially doing the exact same thing O’Connell is doing now.
I totally agree with you, payback is a bitch.
I am amazed that McConnell has the guts to act like Reid. Invoking the Biden Rule like Reid sought to do and acting like a Democrat is just fair and in compliance with Senate precedent. I did not think McConnell had it in him. Yep, payback is a bitch. He certainly has not had it in him in the past.
Yielding to Obama’s marxist attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would bring an end of the Republican Party and they know it. If they yield, I can assure you that the party that replaces it will be much more focused on ending the PC BS we have been hearing every day.
This move doesn’t make sense to me. Garland is not as conservative as Scalia was, but he is a conservative-leaning moderate whom many Republicans have praised in the past. If the Republicans win both the White House and the Senate in November they would be able to nominate someone more conservative than Garland. That’s a big risk. If Hillary wins the White House and Democrats get a majority in the Senate they would have a free hand to put a bat-poop crazy left-winger on the Supreme Court. I’d take Obama’s deal now.
The repugs’ are going to lose the senate majority.
Wanna bet on this?
@Maximus Meridius
“but he is a conservative-leaning moderate”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….whew….inhale…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Who’s this O’Connel guy? Sounds like someone conservatives could get behind.
Oh crap, it’s St. Patricks Day.
@Maximus Meridius
“his move doesn’t make sense to me. Garland is not as conservative as Scalia was, but he is a conservative-leaning moderate whom many Republicans have praised in the past. ”
Maybe you should go look up his rulings on guns. Guns are a pretty core issue for GOP voters. Garland is absolutely atrocious on this issue. Dems are like women…you really have to dig to find out what makes them tick. Republicans are like men…pretty easy to figure out. Garland is weak on the 2A. That is a death sentence in an election cycle, for his nomination, and anyone on the GOP who supports it.
So one person is doing their job and the others are not. Regardless of the sniping, I think those are the facts.
@Steve Thomas
So what are his most egregious rulings on guns?
Meet with him, give him a chance to explain himself and vote him down. MCConnell is acting illegally in my opinion. Hopefully someone takes this to court…maybe even to the supremes.
Up or down vote.
Obstructionist do nothing congress.
I wish they would do their jobs – have a vote – vote it up or down. But vote. Congress today does nothing but throw daggers. They will not authorize an AUMF but say Obama does not do enough about ISIS. They say Obama does not do enough about Syria but will not declare war. They complain about everything, but do nothing.
When Biden said it, McConnell complained. Now it is the McConnell Rule. Wrong then and wrong now.
Saying and implementing are 2 different things, aren’t they.
@ Steve (#9): I spend a fair amount of time in the DC Circuit, Steve, and I can’t say I can think of why someone would describe Garland’s judicial decisions as “atrocious on this issue”. How many “gun” decisions do you think there are? I am only aware of two (there may be more, I’m just going from memory, but I invite your correction on this), and both were very much mainstream jurisprudence. The one that was pre-Heller (at the Supreme Court level) didn’t have the Supreme Court Heller decision to guide it. The one after was more procedural than on the merits, and seemed very much consistent, to the extent it gave any hint of a ruling on the merits, it was very much in tune with Justice Scalia’s dicta in Heller. This guy turns very square corners on his judicial analysis. In that sense he is very much of the school of jurists that most Republicans praise – he is not an “activist”. Of course a recent irony on the Supreme Court is that we have had a period of “conservative” activism, in the sense that Justices that many people describe as “conservatives”, have shown themselves willing to set aside legislative judgments that they think are outdated or mistaken. But irony abounds when we are living in a time of shallow labels.
More to the point on your concern, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court deals with many more issues than just gun issues. Second Amendment cases are a mere sliver of what comes before the Court. I can’t imagine any responsible Senator or citizen forming a judgment on any particular Justice or nominee just because of Second Amendment decision-making. There is much more in play that affects the Constitutional hygiene of the Republic.
Going back to McConnell: He is a great embarrassment to serious Republicans. His knee-jerk reaction within hours of the announcement of Justice Scalia’s death that the Senate would act as though the sitting elected President did not have legitimate constitutional powers was not only factually wrong, but was a radical attack on adherence to the Constitution that one would normally expect to come from political opportunists like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, or Joe Biden in his Senate days (what’s that you tell me? – McConnell is even relying on those guys for guidance? Sheesh.) But even those guys didn’t stop a Supreme Court nomination where there was an actual vacancy. They were just shooting off their mouths in an abstract, hypothetical context.
Nominations to the Supreme Court should be vetted for knowledge, competence and to ensure there are no bad acts in the nominee’s history that would embarrass the Court. If the nominee knows the law, has exhibited a capacity for excellent scholarship and sound judgment, has judicial temperament, respect for the Constitution, and has a clean police record, vote him on. Balance is maintained over time because Presidents of both parties nominate Justices. It works out rather well.
Thank you for a well-stated opinion, Scout.
I am almost speechless over McConnell, who I called O’Connell earlier today. I think he must be off his rocker. Does he seriously think that Obama didn’t win the popular vote and was inaugurated for 4 years in 2012?
PS: if McConnell had an ounce of wisdom, he could have positioned the Republicans in the Senate rather nicely. He still could do this if he silently backs down from previous statements – he could have scheduled hearings and votes on Judge Garland to occur in the autumn. If a Democrat wins, Garland might look very good to the Republicans (assuming the current President didn’t withdraw the nomination after the election). They could vote him in before the end of the Congress. If a Republican wins, they could vote him down. Sure, they’d look like they were extending their general political hackery to the Supreme Court, but with a new Republican president coming in, particularly assuming they retain control of the Senate, it would be a blot on their copy books that would soon be forgotten by many, if not most voters.
After I commented last evening I talked to one of my law partners who also spends some time at the DC Circuit and who does more Constitutional work than I do. He said that his recollection was similar to mine, but that I was a little off in my comment about Judge Garland a #9. He said that Judge Garland was part of a 2-1 decision that upheld the FBI holding gun purchase background check material for 6 months in order to permit review of the background check program. Apparently there exist some people out there who thought it a great idea that the FBI wouldn’t be permitted to do that. That decision was pre-Heller. The only other 2A one that he could remember that Judge Garland was involved in was Heller itself, on its way up to the Supreme Court. Garland voted (among several others) to grant full panel review of Heller as it came out of the Circuit, before it went to the Supreme Court. Such a vote is not a merits vote – it simply says that judges think that an issue is worthy of review by the entire complement of judges on the Court. I would hardly call that an “atrocious” record on Second Amendment issues. Again, however, this is just two old court hounds (myself and my law partner) talking. Neither of us has researched the issue. When I get to the office this morning I’ll take a closer look. In the meantime, it may be that Steve can straighten me out as to why he thinks Garland is so bad on 2A issues. If it’s nothing more than this, I think Steve can come on board and support a very sound jurist who would do an excellent job on the Supreme Court and who would almost inevitably be more careful, considered and less political than anyone the next Democratic President would appoint.
What people don’t realize is that the new “base”, i.e. Trump supporters who will be voting for him in November, actually want the elected officials to get work done and this obstructionist crap is just part of the stuff they hate. I predict the Democrats win the Senate back in November because of this obstructionist behavior. The Republican leadership is clearly out of step with what this “new” base wants.
Yeah, yeah, I know, this new base of voters are really RINOs in so many ways, but the stark reality is that these people are energized and voting. Period. End of story (and the world) as we know it.
The other stark reality is that most of murky middle is RINO, a term I hate. Some of the murky middle hates the way Trump behaves. They have never gotten past the B & B…bluster and bullshit.
What I find strange is that the only woman running is the one people are calling “the establishment.”
@Scout
Scout,
I appreciate the detailed response. Yes, I am referring to his pre-Heller decision for en banc review of the previous 3-judge panel ruling that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, seeing this as “anti-gun”, as this is my go-to-the-mat issue, and I want assurances that whoever succeeds Scalia, won’t overturn Heller. I know there are groups just waiting for the chance to push a case that would present an opportunity to do so. Then again, were it not for this review, the Heller case may have been weaker.
Lest we forget, Republicans are dealing with the “Roberts Effect”, and want to make sure that the balance of the court is maintained. Perhaps Garland is a straight-arrow. The think is, with Roberts, we have enough “swing” built into the court.
Agree.
“if McConnell had an ounce of wisdom, he could have positioned the Republicans in the Senate rather nicely.”
The only reason not to do this is if McConnell thought that telegraphing obstructionism was necessary to for his survival given the mood of primary voters. Maybe he plans to change his mind after the convention and before the election. True this might be an unforced error, but I think he considered this position a strategic necessity.
I just think he is a small, nasty man without ideas of his own. I recall his remark his object to see that Obama only serves one term. That’s pretty much all I have seen out of him and he even failed at that.
Ed, you may be quite right about McConnell’s motivations – they may have been based on pure survival instincts. But that’s the problem with political activity today. Success is measured by getting re-elected, by holding office, not by providing a quality governance/leadership product to the American people.
The base survival instinct was intended by the Founders to have far less prominence in the Senate, with its 6-year terms. That McConnell, recently re-elected, or any Senator for that matter, whether up this year or in 2018 or 2020, would cower before a vocal minority of their electorate, without trying to educate or to lead in the interests of the Nation, speaks volumes about the depths to which the political process has descended. Of course, McConnell’s blind sabotage instincts in this case (sabotage that harms the Republican Party every bit as much as the Nation), are simply a reiteration of his infamous statement that Job One of the Senate majority was to ensure that the current President served only one term.
Back to Steve and guns: You know, it just doesn’t work that way – i.e., that one new judge comes on the court and, suddenly and abruptly, previous 5-4 decisions are overturned. Heller was a close decision to be sure, but Justice Scalia’s decision left a lot of room in it for strong regulation of firearms without having to return to the newly announced principle that owning weapons for home defense is a personal right not constrained by the introductory clause of the Second Amendment. There will no doubt be several important gun cases that will come to the Court in the next decade or two, but they will turn on whether a given municipal or state regulation is so unreasonably harsh that it, in effect, abridges the personal right of ownership found in Heller. There have already been since Heller, and prior to Justice Scalia’s death, a few cases where gun enthusiasts have challenged local regulations and the Heller Court refused to hear them. This is significant, given that it only takes the vote of four Justices to bring up a case for review.
As for Judge Garland particularly, a vote to hear a case en banc doesn’t address the merits of a lower decision (although a judge voting to hear something en banc may, in fact have reservations about a 3-judge panel’s decision). It may reflect a judgment simply that the case is important and needs full court review and participation. In Heller, the vote to hold en band review was pre-empted by the Supreme Court’s intervention. With a Judge like Garland, who is not a judicial “activist” and who is very respectful of precedent, neither you nor the NRA should fear that the minute he hits the Supremes’ bench, they’ll call back Heller (or Citizen’s United or Shelby County, to name some other recent controversial cases from other fields) for a re-do.
Too bad Citizen’s United wont be called back. What a horrible decision, in my opinion. It goes against common sense.
@ Moon: Well, McConnell failed at limiting Obama to one term, but by making that his Job One objective, he did a lot of damage to the Republican Party and to the Republic. I guess Mitch can take consolation by taking credit for success in limiting Obama to two terms.
@Scout
Scout,
All good points. That you think so highly of Garland speaks volumes, and leads me to believe that he does deserve a hearing and a vote.
Thumbs up!
I don’t pretend that Garland is the most favorable judge in the country for Second Amendment issues, Steve. But he’s probably much better than anything likely to emerge if the Democrats win in November, something that, barring an indictment, is a very strong possibility. Moreover, Garland is probably a very good judge for the chemistry of the Court on a very wide range of issues, and is likely to pull the “left” of the court toward the center as he is to have the same effect on the “right” of the court. I do think, however, that McConnell may eventually see what’s obvious to virtually everyone of any political leaning – the best course is to control the schedule, and be in a position to confirm Garland if Hillary wins or seems likely to win. It’s not even clear to me that a Trump appointment would be better from a Republican point of view than what President Obama has put forward.
I have seen a lot of conflicting descriptions of Garland, including that he shows judicial restraint. It is probably worth granting him a hearing, but hearings are not a reliable indicator of a justice’s leanings once (s)he is on the bench. If there a deviation from the philosophy expressed during the hearings, it is usually true that the Justice becomes more liberal with time. Luckily, this guy is 63 yo …..
Bite your tongue, Kelly. The bottom line is, Obama is president and he has a Constitutional responsibility to nominate a Supreme Court justice. More obstructionism, just like seen his entire presidency.
@MoonHowler
Let me ask you something. Apart from the honor of working with a POTUS, would you personally want to work with Obama? My experience shows that personality and charm are extremely important for getting things done, even when it involves senior officials/executives. Consider Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, both of whom were very charming and engaging presidents. Both of them would invite their opponents over to chat and negotiate, and many times they were able to work out a deal. They both used humor and charm to get what they wanted. In contrast, Obama seems to be a very prickly, cold, standoffish person who lectures and belittles his opponents in public. He often presents his proposal as the only reasonable path forward and impugns the motives of anyone who disagrees with him.
Obama is clearly not a very good politician. You can factually note that the Republicans have been obstructionists, but their behavior was certainly no worse during Bill Clinton’s presidency than it is now during Obama’s. The differences between then and now are the temperaments and political talents of the two men. Both were able to deliver inspiring speeches, but only one had the talent to follow up with productive, friendly engagements that delivered results.
There is certainly blame on both sides, but the result of Obama’s administration is that neither side talks to the other and nothing gets done.
I don’t find Obama stand offish. IN fact, I admire his grace and demeanor. Now, what is he like in person? I have never met the man. I did meet Bill Clinton several times as well as Hillary. He is absolutely more engaging but this was also 20 years ago.
I just think they are all different kinds of people. The bottom line is, most of us won’t get to know any president f2f so….I guess it might not matter.
David Souter redux.
@MoonHowler
“What I find strange is that the only woman running is the one people are calling “the establishment.””
Why? She is not only “establishment Democrat,” her family is one of the strongest political machines in the establishment. She’s done nothing but be involved in establishment Democrat machine politics since the 90’s.
As for Citizen’s United…..well, you can blame McCain-Feingold for that. Infringing on 1st Amendment rights tends to get pushback.
“just like seen his entire presidency.” OH…….like when the Democrats controlled Congress and when the Democrat Senate didn’t even consider his budgets for discussion?
Yea, Clinton was real establishment when he first came to Washington. NOT!!!
Spin spin spin
Interesting development on 2nd amendment issues and the Supreme Court
http://www.pagunblog.com/2016/03/21/second-amendment-right-to-a-stun-gun/
UNANIMOUS Ruling.
First take from this: Don’t piss off the Supreme Court by flagrantly defying their decisions. THAT will get them to rule against you regardless of their feelings on the subject.
This ruling will have a very long reach.
I like this decision because it fortifies the point that “arms” aren’t necessarily guns. But, to keep things in context, the Court has recently declined to hear several challenges to state/local regulations of firearms brought up by gun enthusiast interests. We seem to be where Heller indicates we should be: Yes, you have a right to bear arms, particularly as a matter of home defense, but state and local governments may impose considerable regulation of that right, up to the point where the regulation is really an outright ban in disguise.
The ban of concealed carry would, I think, fit well within that reasonable regulation latitude. Can’t wait for someplace to try it and get it up to the Court.