Moderate Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) on Monday strayed from the hard line issued by Senate Republican leaders on President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court, calling for the Senate to consider the President’s nominee.
“I recognize the right of the president, be it Republican or Democrat, to place before the Senate a nominee for the Supreme Court and I fully expect and look forward to President Barack Obama advancing a nominee for the Senate to consider,” Kirk wrote in a Monday op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times.
Kirk’s first public statement on how the Senate should proceed after Scalia’s death had been keenly anticipated because he’s a moderate Republican facing re-election this year in a closely watched race.
“I also recognize my duty as a senator to either vote in support or opposition to that nominee following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information,” he continued. “The Senate’s role in providing advice and consent is as important and significant as the president’s role in proposing a nominee.”
Kirk recalled his return to the U.S. Capitol after recovering from a stroke to call on his Senate colleagues to work past partisan bickering. He said that everyone in the Senate shares “a foundation of deep patriotism.”
“I know we all share this common goal; unfortunately the volume of rancor and partisanship in Washington makes it hard sometimes for us to achieve our full promise,” he wrote. “But, now more than ever, we must all focus on that shared common goal as we deal with the super-heated partisan rhetoric following the tragic loss of a great American, Antonin Scalia.”
Kirk said that a “partisan or extreme nominee would not be prudent,” and said he hoped Obama would select “a nominee who can bridge differences, a nominee who finds common ground and a nominee who does not speak or act in the extreme.”
“Such a selection by the president would demonstrate a break from the rancor and partisanship of Washington and a real commitment to a new beginning even as his own term nears its end,” Kirk wrote.
Shortly after the news broke that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had passed away, Senate Republicans indicated that they would block any nominee selected by Obama. Since then, a few Republican senators have suggested they would be open to considering a nomination put forth by Obama.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Judiciary Committee, last week appeared to leave the door open to holding hearings on Obama’s nominee. He told Radio Iowa that he “would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions.” But later in the week, the Iowa Senator co-wrote an op-ed with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stating that the next president should nominate Scalia’s successor.
He is up for re-election! He’s intelligent enough to know to not side with the squirrely Senators from Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Yes.
I hope Obama’s nominee was never a member of the Lawyer’s Guild. What with Joseph Welch being dead and all, you know?
Must’ve read the new PPP poll.
"-Only 29% of voters approve of the job Toomey is doing to 40% who disapprove, and just 30% approve of the job Portman is doing to 39% who disapprove. They’re both very much in the danger zone for reelection based on those low approval numbers. One thing complicating their path to reelection is how bad the overall brand of Senate Republicans is. Mitch McConnell has a 13/56 approval rating in Pennsylvania, and a 14/57 one in Ohio. His extreme unpopularity is going to be a weight on his party’s incumbents running across the country.
-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37. Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.
-Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward. By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person. Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one- Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them."
He probably shouldn’t have said this:
’ Kirk said that a “partisan or extreme nominee would not be prudent,” and said he hoped Obama would select “a nominee who can bridge differences, a nominee who finds common ground and a nominee who does not speak or act in the extreme.” ’
Obama has a couple of fine, moderate District Court judges ready to go, fresh off a recent Senate approval vote with many Republicans supporting. And this guy will now have to argue that they’re extreme. Proof, once again, that it’s just much simpler to go along with the hive mind - thinking for yourself will only cause trouble with fellow Republicans.