A Long List of GOP Senators Who Promised Not to
Confirm a Supreme Court Nominee During an Election Year
Some
are already backtracking.
·
Senior Reporter
It’s
likely just a matter of when, not if, President Donald Trump nominates a
replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died
Friday of pancreatic cancer. He held a ceremony at the White House just last
week to unveil a short list of future nominees, and at the same time the rest
of the country was processing the news of Ginsburg’s death, an apparently
oblivious Trump was onstage at a rally in Bemidji, Minnesota, talking about nominating
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to the bench. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who
had previously gone around the country telling donors
that Ginsburg’s death would be his party’s “October Surprise,” pledged Friday
that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United
States Senate.”
It’s
a far cry from four years ago. When this same situation unfolded in 2016, after
Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of that year, many Senate
Republicans—most of whom are still in the chamber—drew what purported to be a
principled line in the sand, insisting that it was too close to the
presidential election for President Barack Obama to choose a replacement. It
should be up to the voters to decide in November, they argued. Some of them
even invoked the words of then-vice president Joe Biden, who as a senator
several decades earlier had offered similar logic. They called it the “Biden
Rule.” (Biden, in 1992, was not responding
to any actual vacancy, but merely a hypothetical one.) When Obama nominated
Merrick Garland anyway, no one led the charge as stubbornly as
McConnell:
But
it wasn’t just McConnell. This was the default position at the time. Here’s
what a not-comprehensive look at what 17 active Republican senators said.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is
elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” (source)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas):
“I
believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the
next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have
the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.
Confirming
a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy
arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it
happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential
election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided
government as we have today.
In
1992, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and with a
Republican in the White House, Vice President Joe Biden said his committee
should “seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings” on any
potential nominees until the campaign season was over.” (source)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was
nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you
don’t do this in an election year.” (source)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s
term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” (This was actually
what he said in 2018, doubling down on his previous stance. )
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last
year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican
president .” (source)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more
important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation
of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings.
Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid
have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential
nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly
believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.” (source)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact
individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a
generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people
shouldn’t be denied a voice.” (source)
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next
president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.” (source)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in
1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under
way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of
our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation
battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots
to elect our next president.” (source)
Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in
serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do
everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to
start this process until we hear from the American people.” (source)
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds
constitution, founding principles.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the
future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the
majority party in the U.S. Senate.” (source)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the
newly-elected president.” (source)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an
opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this
reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be
filled until there is a new president.” (source)
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice
until we have a new president.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and
confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a
president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important
decision.” (source)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the
American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that
could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It
is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments
during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years
since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a
presidential election year.” (source)
Pointing
out all the hypocrisy won’t get Democrats very far in what will be one of the
most contentious nomination fights in the court’s history. But it should at
least clarify who they’re dealing with.
