Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, September 19, 2020

There is almost no doubt that McConnell will do whatever he can to fill the seat before the new Congress is seated in January - as he affirmed Friday night - especially given the stakes and Democrats' possible Senate takeover. And he certainly has the amount of time he needs to make it happen. The question is whether he'll have the votes.



Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

*Lindsey Graham - In 2018, when Graham was in line to take over the committee with jurisdiction over Supreme Court nominees, he said that "if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait till the next election."

Graham was even more explicit in 2016, saying, "I want you to use my words against me: If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.' And you could use my words against me, and you'd be absolutely right."

*Lisa Murkowski - "I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. We are 50 some days away from an election," she said Friday, according to Alaska Public Media. "When Republicans held off Merrick Garland it was because nine months prior to the election was too close, we needed to let people decide. And I agreed to do that. If we now say that months prior to the election is okay when nine months was not, that is a double standard and I don't believe we should do it. So I would not support it."

*Susan Collins - The Maine GOP senator, who faces a tough reelection in a blue state this year, told the New York Times earlier this month about voting for a new justice in October, "I think that's too close. I really do."

She also said, according to Martin, that she would oppose seating one in the lame duck if there's a newly elected president.

*Charles Grassley - Grassley, in defending the Garland gambit in 2018, cited precedent, saying that "it was very legitimate that you can't have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents."

Grassley also told NBC News last month that he "couldn't move forward with it" if he were in charge of the Judiciary Committee like he was for Trump's first two Supreme Court nominees.

*Cory Gardner - The Colorado GOP senator said in 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia died, that "I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

*Mitt Romney - It's not yet clear where he stands on this. He told the Hill last month: "I'm not at a point where I have something to say," and his office disputed a rumor that he had decided not to confirm a nominee before Inauguration Day.

But perhaps needless to say, if Romney is on board with a Trump nominee, the nominee would stand a very good chance. He'd be one of the first votes you'd expect the nominee would lose " probably a must-have.

There you have it. Whether it means anything or not is surely debatable and only time will tell.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-19 12:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Pay walled for me.

I don't care what they said in the past and, IMO, only a fool would.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-19 01:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The way I see it, Murkowski's a no.

Collins is a no.

Grassley is a career institutionalist and I don't believe going against his express word in the twilight of his career is something he will easily do. I give him at least a coin flip.

Gardner has no spine, so he'll act like he said nothing. He'll vote for the nominee during the lame duck, but he may hold off prior to the election.

Romney is the wild card. If Trump picks a wildly unqualified knob, Romney will be a solid no. But if Trump chooses someone that Romney favors, then all bets are off.

But I'm reduced to that - hoping that Mitt Romney might at least land us a qualified judge instead of a Trumpian nutjob.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-09-19 01:17 AM | Reply

I know that how you see it.

I'm saying you need to shed any preconceived assumptions.

Noting is normal anymore. Stop using normal metrics to measure an abnormal situation.

Even though it may make you uncomfortable, because if you don't you'll be more than uncomfortable with the future outcome.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2020-09-19 01:25 AM | Reply

But I'm reduced to that - hoping that Mitt Romney might at least land us a qualified judge instead of a Trumpian nutjob.

Maybe we should have voted for him in 2012.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-09-19 01:35 AM | Reply

Maybe we should have voted for him in 2012. #5 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Would have had binders full of solutions to the approaching COVID pandemic
I rewatched Mitt on Netflix the other night

#6 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-09-19 07:44 AM | Reply

Really doesn't matter as ------- is gonna win in November

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-09-19 11:23 AM | Reply

My bet is Murkowski is the only no, the rest will kneel, and a new SCOTUS is confirmed before the election.

#8 | Posted by bored at 2020-09-19 12:07 PM | Reply

My bet is Murkowski is the only no, the rest will kneel, and a new SCOTUS is confirmed before the election.

Let's hope so.

I'll bet she regrets shooting her mouth off on the matter as quickly as she did and pays for it the next time she's on the ballot.

#9 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2020-09-19 12:29 PM | Reply

This will be a knife fight on national television. The GOP senators most at risk in the election will want to defer the matter until after the election, so those who can slow-walk it will. Those who care not about being forever branded as hypocrites will bray for a nomination and a vote, as will those with the safest seats in the Senate.

Hanging over this matter are two things:

(1) what if the nominee is, in normal conditions, unacceptable to the Senate and the country? (Think: Judge Jeanine Pirro). Could the nomination be defeated, by those sensible enough to recognize they have some sort of legacy?

(2) how many GOP senators will think about the prospect of losing the Senate and the presidency? In such a case, if Trump's nominee is shoved through the punishment the GOP senators and their states will suffer could be sharp and unending. As Mitch McTurtle has said: "To victor goes the spoils..."

#10 | Posted by catdog at 2020-09-19 01:08 PM | Reply

Are there any others besides these four who might vote no on principle? Is the whole republican party full of total --------?

I think probably so.

#11 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-09-19 02:12 PM | Reply

Whether it means anything or not is surely debatable

No, it really isn't, and I laugh at anyone who thinks it is.

Republicans have abandoned any notion of shame since the moment Trump took office, and they never looked back. They are going to articulate McConnell's joke of a distinction between this and the Garland nomination and ram through another piece of ----. Look for that to start next week.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2020-09-19 02:36 PM | Reply

Ted Cruz will be mortified if he grew that professorial-looking beard for nothing, and a minority woman is nominated by Trump because politics.

Of course, he should be embarrassed by his flip-flop on nominating justices.... but that ain't happening.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-19 04:28 PM | Reply

...and a minority woman is nominated by Trump because politics.

As if that will happen. My bet is one of the gun waving ambulance chasers.

#14 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-09-19 04:31 PM | Reply

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2020-09-19 04:37 PM | Reply

My prediction is that the new justice will be sworn in, in November after the election. Let the vetting begin!

#16 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2020-09-20 08:56 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort