Mitch McConnell or John Kasich?
Anyone want to bet even up that the GOP Senate will not fold on this and Obama’s SCOTUS nominee is not confirmed before the election?
In his Investor’s Business Daily column Andrew Malcolm makes much of “politicians are famous for leaving themselves “wiggle room” on future events”. He seems, thus, persuaded that Mitch McConnell, having flatly stated that Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court “will not be confirmed”, will stick to that decision despite what is sure to be an all out campaign by the Democrats (aided mightily by the press) to force his capitulation.
The cause for our ‘uncharacteristic’ skepticism that the GOP Senate will, as it does on everything else, fold under such pressure, is based somewhat on Malcolm’s declaration about politicians always leaving wiggle room and McConnell has left himself none.
In the same column, Malcolm cites statements by Democrat ‘politicians’ Biden, Reid, and Schumer which sound to us pretty much “wiggle room-free”, yet now, with the proverbial shoe on the other foot, have completely reversed themselves.
Is McConnell better than those esteemed politicians?
http://www.investors.com/politics/andrew-malcolm/mitch-mcconnell-holds-fast-on-scotus-biden-rule-merrick-garland/
As relayed in Andrew Malcom’s Investors Business Daily column, McConnell’s arguments are quite good, but then he has made good definitive “arguments” about stopping Obamacare and other Obamanations — only to abandon them. Perhaps not so much a public 180 change of position from McConnell is to be feared, but his well worn “my hands are tied” or “they went around me” is always to be feared, along with his sincerity in stopping such maneuvers. Such an excuse is a substitute for his equally well worn “in the interests of collegiality and regular order (as defined by his esteemed colleagues Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer)” capitulation.
Keep in mind that something like seven Republican Senators (combined with Democrats that is a majority of the Senate) have announced they would proceed with hearings, including Mark Kirk in Illinois. Holding hearings does not mean approval of the nominee but why tempt the likes of a RINO like Kirk? And then there is Ohio Governor John “hoping for a brokered convention”, Kasich who intimated he could support Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. No sentient conservative (which leaves out George Will of late) thinks Garland would be anything but a liberal addition to the court (and in our judgement a disaster for the country). Nothing about this needs to be trifled with or nuanced.
We think the main line of defense is Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We hope readers will contact him (see our legislative contact links accessible from the page bar above) with a short note encouraging him to hold fast.
DLH with R Mall
