Garland Shouldn’t Be Considered After Election, McConnell Says

• Report rights infringement
• published: 21 Mar 2016
• views: 4

WASHINGTON — The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, on Sunday dismissed the possibility of Republicans considering President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee after the November election, even if a Democrat were elected president or Republicans lost their majority. In doing do, Mr. McConnell tried to shut the door on a scenario that some Republicans in the Senate have said could allow them to prevent a more liberal jurist than Mr. Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, from reaching the court, should a Democrat win the White House. “That’s not going to happen,” Mr. McConnell said of such an arrangement on “Fox News Sunday.” “The principle is the same. Whether it’s before the election or after the election. The principle is the American people are choosing their next president, and their next president should pick this Supreme Court nominee.” But Mr. McConnell also offered a qualitative assessment of Judge Garland that, until now, he had said was unnecessary until a new president was sworn in. He suggested that Republicans had reason to oppose Judge Garland based on his judicial philosophy. “I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association, the National Federation of Independent Business that represents small businesses,” Mr. McConnell said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I can’t imagine that a Republican-majority Senate, even if it were assumed to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left,” he added. Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, forcefully reiterated his position during interviews with four morning news shows, bringing a renewed vigor to the battle over a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia. His comments, which also touched on how the confirmation fight could affect Senate races this fall, appeared to be aimed as much at Mr. McConnell’s Republican colleagues — some of whom indicated a willingness in recent days to consider Mr. Garland — as at the American electorate. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and a member of the Judiciary Committee, was among those who floated the idea of considering Mr. Garland after Election Day. He said on Thursday that should Hillary Clinton or Senator Bernie Sanders win the White House, he would be open to holding hearings. Asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” if he were ruling out postelection hearings “100 percent,” Mr. McConnell responded with a direct “yes.” At least one senator, Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, who is in a difficult fight for re-election, said on Friday that his fellow Republicans should “just man up and cast a vote.” Mr. McConnell disagreed. “Well, look, Mark Kirk is a great senator,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “But the schedule in the Senate is set by the majority leader. And most of my members are very comfortable with letting the American people make this decision by electing the next president who will fill this vacancy next year.” Senior Democratic officials, in their own television appearances, rebutted Mr. McConnell’s stance, arguing that the Republican position was untenable and that enough of the party’s members, like Mr. Kirk, would realize it to force a vote on the nominee. “McConnell is leading his senators over the cliff,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I am telling everybody that’s watching this, the senators aren’t going to allow that.”