Then and now: What McConnell, others said about Merrick Garland in 2016 vs. after Ginsburg's death by Katie Wadington
USA TODAY
September 19, 2020
When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Senate Republicans came out of the gate insisting that his seat not be filled due to the presidential election about nine months away. The Democrats vehemently disagreed. But ultimately, President Barack Obama's last Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland — a judge who mainly agreed with now Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, when they served together on the appeals court — never received a hearing.
With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18, the debate over Supreme Court nominations during an election year is renewed.
At least one Republican — Sen. Lindsey Graham — had said a Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after the 2020 election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, is saying the opposite of what he did in 2016.
Obama, in a statement out Friday, said:
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard.
Here's how the fight over filling high court vacancies has played out among Senate leaders in the last nearly five years, and what they're saying now:
McConnell when Obama was president
Feb. 16, 2016: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, write an opinion piece in the Washington Post, saying the nation has a "unique opportunity" to make an impact on the court by filling it along with the timeline of voting for a new president, "as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice."
"(Democrats would) rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment by a president on his way out the door," they write.
"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court," they conclude. "It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., waits for his introduction during a visit to the Beaver Dam Amphitheater in Beaver Dam, Ky., Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2020. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley) ORG XMIT: KYTE107
Feb. 22, 2016: McConnell reaffirms his stance: "Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary."
Feb. 23, 2016: “The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they’ve already started making today."
March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."
March 20, 2016: McConnell tells Fox News Sunday, "The Senate has a role to play here. The president nominates, we decide to confirm. We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision. Not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president."
And he tells "Meet the Press": "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."
McConnell with Trump as president
Jan. 31 2017: A day before President Donald Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch for Scalia's seat, McConnell says, "the Supreme Court seat doesn’t belong to any president or any political party."
May 28, 2019: McConnell is asked what he would do if a Supreme Court seat came open in 2020. "Oh, we'd fill it," he said, with a smile.
Feb. 11, 2020: "My motto for the year is ‘leave no vacancy behind," McConnell told conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt.
Sept. 18, 2020: With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, McConnell said, "President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
"Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary," he added. "Once again, we will keep our promise."
Chuck Schumer on vacancies
July 27, 2007: A year and a half before the end of George W. Bush's term, Schumer tells the American Constitution Society that the White House should not presume a nominee would be confirmed if a vacancy were to come up.
"For the rest of this President's term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice (John Paul) Stevens replaced by another (Chief Justice John) Roberts; or Justice (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg by another (Justice Samuel) Alito.
"Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances."
Click for Full Text!