Reid: GOP ‘Surrendering’ To Cruz And Trump By Blocking Obama Nominee

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., discusses the Iran nuclear agreement during his speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2015. Lawmakers returning to Washin... Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., discusses the Iran nuclear agreement during his speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2015. Lawmakers returning to Washington from their summer recess are plunging immediately into bitter, partisan debate over the Iran nuclear accord. The deal struck by Iran, the U.S. and five world powers in July is aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars in relief for economic sanctions. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

In a Washington Post op-ed published on Monday night, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blasted Republicans who have called for the Senate to block President Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away over the weekend.

Reid said that Senate Republicans’ “campaign of partisan sabotage” could have “potentially momentous consequences.”

“Republicans should not insult the American people’s intelligence by pretending there is historical precedent for what they are about to do. There is not,” he wrote.

The minority leader warned that blocking Obama’s nominee could set a dangerous precedent.

“Not only is that principle absurd on its face, but if we set that precedent now, there is nothing to stop future Senates from sliding further down that slippery slope,” he wrote. “It is a small and easily envisioned step to go from ‘no Supreme Court confirmations in this specific election year’ to ‘no confirmations in any election year.’ Our founders who envisioned a fair, bipartisan process must be rolling in their graves.”

“If we enshrine this precedent and declare a functioning Supreme Court optional, subordinate to the whim of the Senate majority, it is easy to envision a future where the Supreme Court is routinely crippled,” Reid continued.

Reid also said that by blocking an Obama nominee, Republicans would be “unconditionally surrendering their party to hard-line presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Donald Trump.”

“Behind closed doors, many of my colleagues complain about the direction their party has taken in recent years,” he wrote. “But if they cross this Rubicon, they will be as culpable as Sen. Cruz or Trump themselves, having resigned any claim to leadership and enlisting as foot soldiers in a radical effort to obstruct and delegitimize the president at all costs.”

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for pine pine says:

    Preaching to the choir here Senator Reid.But I think this is going to be one of those times where all of the people wont be fooled.

  2. Of course NPR has already had Orrin Hatch on this morning saying it’s perfectly reasonable for the GOP to tell Obama not to make a nomination. We all know what he would say in the same interview if we had a republican president.

  3. Avatar for fgs fgs says:

    A conservative Justice would be a huge improvement! Scalia was a flagrant judicial activist, who practically called the plays like an offensive coordinator. The next justice simply cannot be sending partisan smoke signals, making it clear who to sue when and where, to achieve which result.

  4. I hope the President takes the matter to the Supreme Court. I am confident that their opinion would not support McConnell’s Usurpation.

  5. Avatar for bd2999 bd2999 says:

    I do not think this would even be a precedent. This sort of thing rarely comes up if ever. There are rare instances of it happening, but even then they tend to go against what the GOP is saying. I mean Regan did something with a 47 year gap and nobody gnased their teeth too much.

    It is a political move really. Their hope is to get their base going. As this justice is key to keeping the court conservative. So if they make a stand against a hated president, from their end anyway, the base may rise up. Their best case is keep control of the senate and get the presidency. And then basically pack the court with conservatives. The incentive for them to act is low unless they lose. Then they went from being able to potentially get a moderate (still shifting the slant of the court) to potentially a liberal if the Dems win the presidency and the senate. So they are playing roulet.

    Reid is very right about what the Founders were going for initially. There are not restrictions based on time frame. The president has a job to put people on the court. The senate has their part in it too. Now, I think it would be better politics and make them look less like spoiled kids if the president nominated and then they voted down everyone for random reasons. At least they could say they are doing their job.

    Not that their base cares. Really, getting people on the Court is going to be harder and harder in this sort of climate. I imagine that it would be hard for an uber conservative too that would deal with a Dem senate. You rarely get to put exactly who you want on there.

    However, the president could play politics a bit the other way. Nominating qualified female African American candidates or similar would pretty much play into the narrative that the GOP is against anybody not white. Seems only fair.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

17 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for quayside Avatar for fgs Avatar for charliee Avatar for imkmu3 Avatar for leftflank Avatar for bluestatedon Avatar for cwazycajun Avatar for squirreltown Avatar for teenlaqueefa Avatar for mantan Avatar for sherlock1 Avatar for texasswampbuggy Avatar for bd2999 Avatar for pine Avatar for anon216902 Avatar for darrtown Avatar for swampcritter Avatar for gusfabriani Avatar for marcinmin

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: