Here’s the latest on the president’s nominee, who will be introduced in the Rose Garden shortly. You can watch here.
I want to be careful not to over-interpret this, but a few more Republican senators have said today they would be willing to meet with Merrick Garland. That is at odds with what Senate GOP leadership and conservative outside groups have been calling for, mainly because they want to avoid going down a slippery slope where it becomes about the nominee rather than their blanket opposition to Obama naming the next Supreme Court justice.
The list of Republicans who are willing to meet with President Obama’s SCOTUS nominee.
This idea that Senate Republicans will roll over if Hillary Clinton wins in November and go ahead and confirm Merrick Garland in a lame duck session really undercuts their whole argument about why they can’t even consider his nomination now. Nina Totenberg reports this lame duck thing was signaled to the White House via back channels. Sen. Orrin Hatch is on board with it. Lauren Fox has other GOP senators expressing irritation with the idea. And you can understand why. Her report coming soon.
Orrin Hatch is obviously a big fan of Merrick Garland. Not just in the sense that he voted to confirm him to the appeals court nearly two decades ago and now Dems want to use that against him. But in a real, this-is-my-kind-of-Democrat kind of way.
Here’s Hatch in 1997 singing Garland’s praises. But even as recently as last week Hatch was like, yeah, right, Obama will never nominate someone like Garland when he can pander to the liberal base. Oops.
And now you’ve got Hatch undercutting the GOP stonewall by saying he’d consider confirming Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton wins in November.
I’ve hinted at this before. But a little-discussed aspect of the Trump insurgency and drive to become First Citizen is that the GOP has been remarkably successful in recent years in scheduling its collective freakouts in non-election years: debt default crisis (2011), Cruz Obamacare government shutdown (2013). There are numerous examples. Obviously by its nature, a meltdown or freakout in a primary contest and nomination fight is by definition during an election. But managing the schedule so that the freakouts and elections don’t overlap is a pretty big thing – especially presidential elections. The last time there was a scheduling breakdown was during the 1998 Clinton impeachment freakout. And, as you’ll remember, a predicted GOP wave election turned into an almost unprecedented, if still modest, Democratic pick up in the House in the sixth year of a two term president’s tenure in office.
Alright, I want to be clear that this disagreement among Senate Republicans is over a minor subplot in the Merrick Garland confirmation saga: Would they confirm him in a lame duck session after the November election if Hillary Clinton wins? The idea is that Garland would be a better (and probably older) choice than anyone Hillary would nominate, especially if Republicans have lost the Senate.
But as I noted below that idea really undercuts the GOP’s rationale for a united opposition to even considering Obama’s nominee now. And several GOP senators already see why that is problematic.
“We can’t have it both ways,” Lindsey Graham said. “We cannot say ‘let the people speak,’ and then say ‘no, you can’t.’ If you are going to let the people speak, let ’em speak and honor their choice.”
More from Lauren Fox on The Hill here.
The outside conservative legal groups who are the hired gun enforcers of the Senate GOP stonewall against considering any Obama SCOTUS nominee are saying they’re cool with Republican senators meeting with Merrick Garland. They’re even cool with discussions of confirming him in a lame duck session if a Democrats wins the White House in November. I think that’s just putting a good face on things after the fact because this is not in the script they had in mind. The script was an absolute no. The whole point was avoiding getting into the particulars on the nominee. Just no. It’s why Mitch McConnell made his unseemly play almost as soon as Scalia’s death was confirmed to shut it all down before it started.
I wanted to follow up on David’s point from yesterday about the first few hours of the Merrick Garland nomination. Last month, not long after Justice Scalia’s death, we discussed the importance of ‘the three nos‘ and the way they suggested not the strength of the Senate Republican position but rather its brittleness. Just to review, ‘the three nos’ are the veritable catechism Senate Republicans devised and adopted in the days just after Justice Scalia’s death: no vote, no hearings, no meetings. Republicans could have adopted a posture of outward good faith, hold hearings but find deal-breaker problems with any nominee Obama sent up and simply run out the clock. But once they opted for denying Obama another nomination outright, something like ‘the three nos’ became essential because it was important to end the discussion, end the debate as soon as possible, especially before it dragged into the heart of the election season.
New video from inside the truck/SUV, during the getaway attempt and eventual shooting of LaVoy Finicum at the end of the Oregon stand off. Watch.