Why Chuck Grassley Is Going All In On Trump-Appointed SCOTUS Justices

[UCmeNdc]

This is why we need either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders to win in the General election. The Supreme Court!


Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says “there’s no problem with” presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump “appointing people to the Supreme Court,” according to the Associated Press. Grassley’s statement is informative in no small part because, while the senator apparently can find no reason why a reality show host who has built his presidential campaign on overt racism and appeals to violence should not choose a Supreme Court justice, Grassley has taken a very different position on whether President Obama should be allowed to do the same.

Almost immediately after news of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia’s death broke, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) announced that the GOP intended to offer massive resistance to anyone Obama chose to replace Scalia. Grassley has wholeheartedly supported this strategy, refusing even to hold a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/10/3776868/senate-judiciary-chair-no-problem-trump-appointing-people-supreme-court/

[Submariner]

1. Because Grassley is a racist fucking cracker, that's why

Just like hillbilly McConnell and birther Trump. Honky crackers.

[silvershadow]

2. This SCOTUS nomination being politicized, especially to this degree, might just be

the lowest this country has ever sunk to. President Obama should just bypass them altogether. So help me, if he ends up not getting to appoint his nominee I will be fit to be tied.

[HereSince1628]

5. SCOTUS arguments in the POTUS election are getting to be pretty traditional.

The history of nominations is that most presidents get to make one, and it's not at all uncommon for presidents get to make several.

The exception being Carter see table at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

And a President by the constitution, only gets to nominate. Making nominations means rather -little- if the senate doesn't confirm. And so we end up with SCOTUS appointments of people whose philosophical approach is much influenced by the composition of the Senate. I think this is the way the writers of the Constitution intended it to be... a consequence of compromise. Whether or not they appreciated that the future held bitter partisan divides and obstructionism is open to question.

It's always peculiar to me that when this argument on the importance of presidential appointments is made, it isn't always articulated with senate races that can make it happen. It's almost like the argument isn't well thought out, almost like it's another meme to push loyalty to whatever blue candidate is running.


(Of course, the presidential election years are also years in which 1/3 of the senate stands for election and so is the mid-term election. In a single term a president whose leadership is popular gets two chances at bending a total of 66% of the Senate toward his/her perspective on judicial appointments, and a two term president gets the potential chance to influence every senate race. In 2016 there is much effort on the part of the DNC to make sure that establishment-style dems are backed for senate seats. Looks like Feingold is the only progressive dem senatorial candidate with a real shot at ousting a republican.)

[Trust Buster]

3. The Federalist Society prepares a list of Supreme Court candidates they feel are acceptable.

Republican Presidents choose from that list.

[DrDan]

4. only one way to prevent this . . . and we all know what that is

anyone failing to vote is deserving of blame on this issue alone