Outside Groups Warn GOP: Don’t Even Think About Holding A SCOTUS Hearing

FILE - In this Oct. 20, 2015, file photo, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia waits during an introduction before speaking at the University of Minnesota as part of the law school's Stein Lecture series in Minn... FILE - In this Oct. 20, 2015, file photo, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia waits during an introduction before speaking at the University of Minnesota as part of the law school's Stein Lecture series in Minneapolis. The presence of three women on the Supreme Court isn't enough to persuade Scalia that the court has become a diverse body. In remarks Wednesday, Nov. 11, in Philadelphia, Scalia noted that four of its members are from New York City, a fifth from New Jersey and two more from California. (AP Photo/Jim Mone, File) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

If any Republican senator is thinking about defecting from the GOP’s tough line on blocking a Supreme Court nomination until next year, then let them be warned. Outside conservative groups are preparing to go to war over who should get to pick a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly over the weekend, and they don’t want to see even a hearing considering the nominee President Obama has vowed to put forward.

“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. “It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.”

The pressure he and other groups are putting on lawmakers comes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement almost immediately after Scalia’s death, signaling that Republicans would delay the confirmation process, regardless of the nominee, until after a new president has been inaugurated.

“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”

For both sides of the political divide, the stakes could not be higher.

“We’ve known this was coming for while. We set aside resources for this fight because everyone knows the next president is likely to have maybe three nominations to make,” Severino said. She wouldn’t go into details about her group’s next moves when it comes to halting the Obama nominee, but said “we’re totally prepared for it,” including financing the effort.

One key choice for Republican lawmakers is whether to go through the motions of considering a nominee — though hearings and other vetting — before blocking them in a vote, or whether GOP leaders should refuse to even begin the process in the first place. McConnell’s statement, which was quickly followed by statements made by other Republican leaders echoing his logic, suggested they were planning for a full stonewall — no hearings, no nothing

Outside conservative groups with influence on Capitol Hill — and particularly those that inhabit its far-right flank — were quick to cement the line McConnell drew.

“Senator McConnell is right, under no circumstance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president,” Michael Needham — the head of Heritage Action, the lobby arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation — said in a statement posted Monday.

The Family Research Council is also advocating that Senate refuse to take up any nominee Obama submits.

“The Senate is under no obligation to consider them,” Travis Weber, the director of the FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, said in an interview with TPM. “President Obama can nominate people until his heart’s content and they have no obligation to look at them one way or another, given the gravity of the moment.”

Some reports have suggested that some Republicans are already wavering on McConnell’s tough line, pointing to comments made by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), but legal activists dismissed that analysis as overstated.

“The headlines about the fracturing are more wishful thinking than anything else,” Severino said. “If you really look at the full statements, I think it’s remarkable how the Republican senators are speaking with one voice on this issue.”

According Levey, FreedomWorks is preparing to target senators who look like they’ll back down from the fight, while bolstering those who hold to McConnell’s tough initial line.

He said his group sent out an alert to its activists across the country Monday evening that resulted in 14,000 emails to McConnell’s office, and that, aside from email pressure, they are planning events in senators’ home states.

Levey also threatened to primary senators who don’t toe the line.

“In some cases where there are potential primary opponents, we might consider supporting a primary opponent if the senator did not do the right thing,” Levey said.

As Rory Cooper, a GOP strategist, wrote on Medium, part of the strategy of denying the Obama administration even a hearing is to prevent the media from focusing on the person instead of the process, and in effect, starving the story of oxygen.

But the outside groups pushing the tactic also argued it’s a more principled approach to blocking a nominee that Republicans will inevitably block in a vote anyway.

“It’s the most honest,” Levey said. ”The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee. … Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.”

Latest DC
166
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. It’s practically the definition of irony that the death of the “Originalist” Supreme is leading to right-wing groups whole-heartedly ignoring the basic parts of the Constitution requiring Advice and Consent from the Senate. What part of “no obligation to consider” meets Advice and Consent?

    But I am glad that they are naked and open about their ambitions: In the old days, Republicans used dog whistles and whispered behind closed doors, making it hard to call them out for their atrocious behavior.

    Now everyone can see exactly the games they are playing. Much easier to face that head-on.

  2. Avatar for bd2999 bd2999 says:

    The Senate does have an obligation to consider them. It pretty much says as much. It does not say sit on it. It does not matter what version of right they are going with in their minds. The Constitution does not say to let the job sit open for a year. And what does the court being balanced matter?

  3. Two extremely conservative religious groups (yes, you too, Heritage) and a Libertarianish group control the Republican Party.

    And the Republicans say they represent the mainstream “American People” every time they see a mic?

  4. Avatar for jsfox jsfox says:

    The next time one of these groups says we need to follow the Constitution they should be roundly laughed out of the room.

  5. Avatar for lew lew says:

    “Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama”

    Gosh, what is it about Obama that is so objectionable? What could it be? What could it be? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

160 more replies

Participants

Avatar for valgalky23 Avatar for cabchi Avatar for paulw Avatar for alliebean Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for charliee Avatar for jdkahler Avatar for mcgloinm Avatar for thunderhawk Avatar for inlabsitrust Avatar for boscobrown Avatar for tomdibble Avatar for Lacuna-Synecdoche Avatar for DuckmanGR Avatar for inversion Avatar for mantan Avatar for daveyjones64 Avatar for clearwater Avatar for stradivarius50t3 Avatar for kitty Avatar for careysub Avatar for dnl Avatar for darrtown Avatar for cola

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: