Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) emerged from an hour-long Tuesday meeting with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland “more convinced than ever” that the Republican-controlled Senate should hold hearings for him.
“The next step in my view should be public hearings before the Judiciary Committee,” Collins told journalists gathered outside their meeting, according to NBC’s Luke Russert.
Collins said she found Garland “impressive” and refused to rule out voting for him if hearings do proceed. She also suggested other Republican senators may change their mind about moving forward with the process if they met with him, according to CNN’s Manu Raju.
Susan Collins calls Garland “impressive,” doesn’t rule out voting for him and says she thinks GOP minds would be changed if they met w him
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 5, 2016
Republican Senate leaders have insisted they will not hold hearings for Garland because they want the presidential candidate elected in November to be able to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Collins and several other GOP senators, including Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), have asked their colleagues to move away from that hardline stance.
The Maine senator argued in a March interview that there was “no basis” for the current blockade, given that President Obama “is our President until next January.”
After meeting with Garland on Tuesday, Collins pointed out that Republican senators could face an even less appealing option should a Democrat win the presidency in November.
“It would be ironic if the next president happens to be a Democrat and chooses someone to Judge Garland’s left,” Collins said, according to Fox News’ Chad Pergram.
ME GOP Sen Collins: It would be ironic if the next president happens to be a democrat and chooses someone to Judge Garland’s left
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) April 5, 2016
Garland, a moderate who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, received praise from politicians on both sides of the aisle in the past.
Ironic or simply fair. If still unconfirmend, should Garland withdraw his nomination before the Nov. election in order to reduce further politicization of the Supreme Court by the GOP?
Yes he should.
I do sense the Turtle’s wall is cracking with Collins not only saying others should meet with Garland but imploring them to actually hold hearings! Good I say, beat back the Turtle’s plan!
It would be ironic, if stopping the court from changing composition was their primary goal. But that is merely a secondary goal for these guys. The primary goal is to stop the black guy from appointing a third justice. If they get a more liberal jurist from President Hillary, stopping Garland’s nomination will still be mission accomplished for the GOP. No irony at all, I’m afraid.
Huh… As if the duty as laid out in the constitution weren’t enough.
Keep in mind that the GOP hasn’t sworn to approve anyone, including whomever might be nominated by the next president.
If Hillary wins, don’t expect Republicans to welcome her choice with open arms. They’ll filibuster…for a decade if they have to.