Sen. Jeff Flake: Hillary's going to be President, let's confirm Garland

[Gass3268]

I wonder if he thinks the Senate will be gone too?

[Virginiá]

This is a good example of why I wish voters actually paid attention to what is going on in our government. This is shameless behavior. Once upon a time, Senators from both parties had this crazy idea that the president, regardless of which party he is from, should have a bit of latitude in picking USSC justices. So much for that.

Many Republican lawmakers in Congress have no respect for anything anymore. All they seem to care about these days is gaining power and winning elections.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Flake says it might be Garland time
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/jeff-flake-merrick-garland-vote-supreme-court-230109

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake has maintained for months that Republicans should take up Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination if it looks like the presidential contest is a lost cause for the GOP.

It's looking about that time, Flake said in an interview on Thursday.

"I said if we were in a position like we were in in '96 and we pretty much knew the outcome that we ought to move forward. But I think we passed that awhile ago," Flake said. "If Hillary Clinton is president-elect then we should move forward with hearings in the lame duck. That's what I'm encouraging my colleagues to do."

The political calculus is straightforward: Better to deal with Garland now and avoid swallowing a more liberal nominee from Hillary Clinton.

Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not explicitly say that he expects Clinton will win. But he all but admitted that Donald Trump — whom Flake opposes — is toast.

"I'm saying that I'm not one to deny polls, particularly when they are overwhelming," Flake said. And in the current crop of polls show a highly likely Clinton win, Flake said, "there is some accuracy there."

[Vosem]

I don't see anything that's wrong with this.

[Hammy]

If Clinton wins, Obama needs to hold the Republicans to their word--let the next president pick the judge. If they fail to do so then they can kiss their congressional control goodbye in the midterms.

[DavidB.]

If they fail to do so then they can kiss their congressional control goodbye in the midterms.

It doesn't work like that, sorry.

[Hammy]

If they fail to do so then they can kiss their congressional control goodbye in the midterms.

It doesn't work like that, sorry.

I don't think the people will put up with two years of a partially functioning court--the GOP tends to do better in midterms because of turnout and I think this could be used to motivate Democrats to show up.

[Vosem]

If they fail to do so then they can kiss their congressional control goodbye in the midterms.

It doesn't work like that, sorry.

I don't think the people will put up with two years of a partially functioning court--the GOP tends to do better in midterms because of turnout and I think this could be used to motivate Democrats to show up.

Is this talking point going to be the successor to the governmental shutdown motivating voters in 2014?

[Lyin' Steve]

If they fail to do so then they can kiss their congressional control goodbye in the midterms.

It doesn't work like that, sorry.

I don't think the people will put up with two years of a partially functioning court--the GOP tends to do better in midterms because of turnout and I think this could be used to motivate Democrats to show up.

Nah. The GOP won't be punished for their behavior because Republicans are the only ones who actually bother to vote in midterms, and 2018 will be as big a landslide for Republicans as the last two midterms. Of course, two years after that, when the electorate isn't solely composed of white Republicans, Clinton (or a different Democrat if she decides not to seek reelection) will win reelection by a decent margin.

How did the democrats sweep Congress in 2006?

[Bojack Horseman]

If Clinton wins, Obama needs to hold the Republicans to their word--let the next president pick the judge. If they fail to do so then they can kiss their congressional control goodbye in the midterms.

This precisely. Not only should he withdraw Garland, but also talk RBG and Breyer into retiring so we can get three young liberals on that court and rub the Republicans' noses in it.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If they fail to do so then they can kiss their congressional control goodbye in the midterms.

It doesn't work like that, sorry.

I don't think the people will put up with two years of a partially functioning court--the GOP tends to do better in midterms because of turnout and I think this could be used to motivate Democrats to show up.

Nah. The GOP won't be punished for their behavior because Republicans are the only ones who actually bother to vote in midterms, and 2018 will be as big a landslide for Republicans as the last two midterms. Of course, two years after that, when the electorate isn't solely composed of white Republicans, Clinton (or a different Democrat if she decides not to seek reelection) will win reelection by a decent margin.

How did the democrats sweep Congress in 2006?

Bush had 30% approvals. Only way a 2006-type thing could happen in 2018 is 1) an unpopular Trump presidency, or 2) a highly popular (I'd say ~60% approvals) Clinton presidency.

[Virginiá]

2) a highly popular (I'd say ~60% approvals) Clinton presidency.

I doubt that would even come close. Bill Clinton had approval ratings hovering between 60% - 66% going into the '98 midterm and Democrats gained a few seats (despite losing the House PV by a tiny bit). Eisenhower had approval ratings in the 58% - 70% range in 1954 and yet Republicans lost control of Congress that year, albeit not in a huge landslide or anything. His approval ratings were in the low-mid 50s in 1958 and Republicans lost big, which marked the beginning of consistently large Democratic Congressional majorities.

Doesn't seem possible to get anything remotely close to a 2006-like midterm landslide while your party holds the presidency, except maybe if the opposition party's House/Senate members are caught on video sacrificing small children to the ghost of Reagan.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He should be confirmed. I'll take a YEA vote even if it's for the wrong reason.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

We can have a vote after the election, but he won't get 60 votes.  I would draw a line in the sand on confirming any justices who support Roe or trangender bathrooms or go against religious liberty.  The Senate has just as many rights in this process as the president!

[SteveRogers]

We can have a vote after the election, but he won't get 60 votes.  I would draw a line in the sand on confirming any justices who support Roe or trangender bathrooms or go against religious liberty.  The Senate has just as many rights in this process as the president!

He won't need 60 votes.

[President Johnson]

Right move, but too late and made out of opportunism.

It is such a disgrace that the GOP has been blocking even a hearing of a highly qualified judge only because of their hatred for President Obama. The president only fullfiled his presidential duties and he even selected a more moderate judge. It shows how much the GOP has became an irresponsible party. Especially in a system of government, that needs compromise to function well. And they're surprised when people lose confidence in institutions.

[DavidB.]

We can have a vote after the election, but he won't get 60 votes.  I would draw a line in the sand on confirming any justices who support Roe or trangender bathrooms or go against religious liberty.

lol

People like you almost make me support the Democrats.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

From the Republican point of view confirming a relatively moderate Garland would be better than letting Hillary, fresh from electoral victory, nominate her choice.

[Ogre Mage]

lol lol lol

If Grassley and McConnell hold Garland hearings in the lame duck, especially if there is an incoming President Hillary Clinton and Democratic Senate in 2017, it will be the height of hypocrisy.

They have preposterously held up Garland's nomination for a year under the lie that because it is a presidential election year, the "people" should decide.  If they try to confirm him in the lame duck, what happened to the people deciding?  Shouldn't the incoming President and Senate that the people voted in handle it instead?  If this comes to pass, they should be blasted for such bull$h!t.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

We can have a vote after the election, but he won't get 60 votes.  I would draw a line in the sand on confirming any justices who support Roe or trangender bathrooms or go against religious liberty.  The Senate has just as many rights in this process as the president!

Thank God that your type of people are (literally) dying out and will never be in charge of this country ever again.

[Xing]

Republicans in congress deserve to be held accountable for this immaturity, but of course they won't be.

[SteveRogers]

lol lol lol

If Grassley and McConnell hold Garland hearings in the lame duck, especially if there is an incoming President Hillary Clinton and Democratic Senate in 2017, it will be the height of hypocrisy.

They have preposterously held up Garland's nomination for a year under the lie that because it is a presidential election year, the "people" should decide.  If they try to confirm him in the lame duck, what happened to the people deciding?  Shouldn't the incoming President and Senate that the people voted in handle it instead?  If this comes to pass, they should be blasted for such bull$h!t.

You're correct of course, but are there actually any people who didn't see through this lie from day one? Anyone at all?

[Hammy]

We can have a vote after the election, but he won't get 60 votes.  I would draw a line in the sand on confirming any justices who support Roe or trangender bathrooms or go against religious liberty.  The Senate has just as many rights in this process as the president!

This sort of thought is exactly why I quit voting Republican.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

We can have a vote after the election, but he won't get 60 votes.  I would draw a line in the sand on confirming any justices who support Roe or trangender bathrooms or go against religious liberty.  The Senate has just as many rights in this process as the president!

You mean the kind of religious liberty that bans all members of a certain religion from entering the country wholesale? You are so principled.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Let Hillary do it. If she wants to renominate Garland, we'll confirm him in February. If she wants Sirvansian, Klobuchar, or some other reasonable liberal, that's her choice. Obviously a blank check like Goodwin Liu should be denied. But a moderate liberal for a Den President is exactly what "let the next president choose" means, which is the GOP's OFFICIAL POSITION on the issue.