After weeks of public pressure and persistent attacks, Senate Democrats think they’ve begun to crack Republicans’ resistance to holding confirmation hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. John Boozman, said he used the meeting to reiterate McConnell’s position. One group, FreedomWorks, said Collins was caving to the White House and wasn’t to be trusted. “What needs mending is the Judiciary Committee under his [Grassley’s] chairmanship, which he has annexed as a political arm of the Republican leader’s office”.
Advertisement
Grassley has invited Garland to a breakfast meeting to explain why he will not hold hearings, a Grassley spokeswoman said on Monday.
Senators returned to Washington this week after a two-week recess in their home states, where Democrats kept up a heavy barrage of attacks, protests and events to highlight the Republican senators who oppose going through the confirmation process for Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated three weeks ago by Obama.
Despite pressure from interest groups, newspaper editorial boards and constituents over the Easter break, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said there remained 52 Republican senators opposed to hearings or a vote on Garland.
“Inches will turn into feet, feet will turn into miles and hopefully Judge Garland will turn into Justice Garland in the coming months”, Schumer said.
Later, the White House announced that it had scheduled additional meetings with four other Republican senators: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Jeff Flake of Arizona.
Some senators have refused to meet with Garland because they believe the next president should nominate the next Supreme Court justice not President Obama. “We had a couple of our members in blue states that have a contrary view, but there’s, you know, 52 others who are very comfortable with no hearings or no votes”.
Democrats kept up their attack on Republicans for blocking Garland.
He added, “I think it is safe to say there will not be hearings or votes”.
Today, Garland is to return to Capitol Hill, this time for meetings with U.S. Sens. He says the court would have more credibility if the next president makes the nomination.
In remarks on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Grassley placed partial blame on the court itself, arguing the justices had “drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences”.
Roberts “would be well-served to address the reality – not the perception – that too often there is little difference between the actions of the court and the actions of the political branches”, Grassley said, railing against justices for voting too often on politics and subjective opinions “not on law”. The move isn’t unusual, Politifact noted, and conservative D.C. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph also called for the case to be reheard.
Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesman, said Obama and Senate Democrats are trying to “spin phantom momentum and incrementalism (because) they’ve run headlong into reality”. “We must not let it fester”.
“Certainly we’ve got that in our arrow quiver to do that and other things if we choose”, Reid said. “We need a rational, adult, open-minded consideration of the constitutional process”. They contend that Obama’s successor, who will be elected on November 8 and take office on January 20, should fill the vacancy.
After that meeting, Collins told reporters, “The meeting left me more convinced than ever that the process should proceed”. He did quietly thank Manchin, however, when the senator said he didn’t understand why Republican senators wouldn’t meet with him.
Advertisement
Obama says it is his right and duty to name a nominee – and it would appear the American public is on his side.
