Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 11:09 AM Aug 2016

Grassley hints at Supreme Court confirmation hearing in lame duck

The notorious 'lame duck' session is getting interesting!

Source: Politico, by

Senate Republicans could relent on their hard-line stance in opposition to granting Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing this year, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said Monday.

*****

While unlikely, he added that Senate Republicans could change their position if enough senators push for a hearing after the November election, leaving the door open for Garland’s confirmation before the new Congress takes office should Donald Trump lose to Hillary Clinton.

*****

Read it at: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/senate-merrick-garland-confirmation-grassley-227543

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Grassley hints at Supreme Court confirmation hearing in lame duck (Original Post) yallerdawg Aug 2016 OP
Obama and Clinton should both be clear about this BlueStreak Aug 2016 #1
Are they afraid Hillary will nominate Obama in Garland's place? Frustratedlady Aug 2016 #2
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
1. Obama and Clinton should both be clear about this
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 11:23 AM
Aug 2016

They should make a statement like "The Constitution requires the Senate to carry out its role of advise and consent. The Senate has failed to carry out their Constitutional responsibility. While Secretary Clinton and I both have the utmost respect for Judge Garland and believe he is extraordinarily qualified, the Senate has shirked its duties using the argument that the Next President should make this choice. This election is being contested, in significant part, based on what kind of Supreme Court the American people want in our future. Therefore, if Judge Garland is not seated before Election Day, I will withdraw his name from consideration, leaving that choice to Mr. Trump or Secretary Clinton as the case may be."

In other words, force their hand.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
2. Are they afraid Hillary will nominate Obama in Garland's place?
Wed Aug 31, 2016, 01:30 PM
Aug 2016

I'd love to see that smirk disappear from Grassley and McConnell's faces if that happened. I'd even pay admission.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Grassley hints at Supreme...