Chuck Grassley Vows To Play Politics, Obstruct Supreme Court Process A Year

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent shock waves throughout the political and judicial world on Saturday afternoon. The conversation online revolved around condolences and the surprise of the longtime jurist’s passing for all of about ten minutes before the focus turned to politics. Senate Republicans made clear very quickly that they had no intention of confirming a new Supreme Court justice so long as Barack Obama is President.

Iowa’s own Chuck Grassley will play the key, high-profile role in the process as the new Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who would handle a potential nominating hearing. He chose to join his Republican counterparts in vowing to obstruct any effort by President Obama to carry out his constitutional duty of nominating a replacement.

Grassley released the following statement a few hours after Scalia’s death was confirmed:

“Justice Scalia was an intellectual giant.  His originalist interpretation of the Constitution set the standard for the court. He had an unwavering dedication to the founding document that has guided our country for nearly 230 years. His humor, devotion to the Constitution and quick wit will be remembered for years to come. Barbara and I send our prayers to Justice Scalia’s family.

“The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year. Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this President, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

To either not hold hearings or have a vote or confirm a nominee would be a departure from Supreme Court nominations in recent years. And the longest time that a nominating process to last through confirmation was 125 days. Obama has a little over 11 months still in office.

Grassley argues that the Senate should let the American people weigh in on who the next justice should be in the general election. That, however, would assume that voters thought they were only electing Obama to a three-year term when they voted to re-elect him in 2012. Most Republicans are using similar language about not nominating a justice during an election year, but the obvious reasoning here is that they simply don’t want a Democrat, even though he’s the President, to get a choice. Rather, their hope is a Republican will retake the White House in the 2016 election.

Actually, Grassley essentially lies in his statement about how a justice hasn’t been confirmed in an election year vote in 80 years. They have. Indeed, here’s a video of Grassley praising the speedy nomination of Anthony Kennedy in the presidential election year of 1988:

 

by Pat Rynard
Posted 2/13/16
Photo by Gage Skidmore

6 Comments on "Chuck Grassley Vows To Play Politics, Obstruct Supreme Court Process A Year"

    • Reagan did appoint Scalia, but in 1986. His appointee for his final year of 1988 was Anthony M. Kennedy. And Grassley voted to confirm him, so he knows he’s lying.

  • As it should be! No one sitting president should be given the opportunity to stack the courts with activists judges. The ones Obama that Obama has already put there have proven themselves to be willing to abuse their power, legislate from the bench, and disregard the constitution. More of the Democrsts penchant of calling the kettle black. They have played the same role thst they are now decrying. Nothing to compare their rampant hypocrisy and double standard to! This is what’s pissing the American people off. We have already come to regret confirmation of nearly all of Obama appointees. I tjink we have learned our lesson.

    • Excuse me sir, but I must ask, have you read the article on which you have commented?

      This article has nothing to do with Obama’s ability to nominate members of the Court, it is an evaluation of Senator Chuck Grasseley and his blatant lying not only to both Congress and the American people, but also to himself. There is no 80 year precedent for not approving Court nominees during election years, as Senator Grasseley himself has proven.

      I encourage you to actually read said article, and then pass judgments on the subject of the Article. Thank you very much sir.

  • 1. Activist judges? Scalia was one of the most activist judges in American history–especially on Bush v. Gore and his almost total rejection of civil liberties.
    2. What would the Founding Fathers have done in this situation? Well, George Washington appointed and had confirmed two Supreme Court justices in 1796. Thomas Jefferson had one, also, in 1804.

  • And as for “Activist Judges”, Mr Black, how does the side business of Justice Thomas set with that?? The rules on a president choosing a justice do not list any preference for election years. If you don’t own a copy of the constitution to refer to, check at your closest public library, or the American Civil Liberties Union will happily provide a pocket size one. The Senate’s role is advise and consent,not selection nor choosing when!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

*

*