ADVERTISEMENT

Grassley says position on Supreme Court is not 'hypocritical'

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,352
58,777
113
Sen. Charles Grassley insisted Wednesday that he is not a hypocrite for going back on a statement he made to constituents four years ago about whether the Senate should take up nominations for U.S. Supreme Court justice during an election year.
Grassley, an Iowa Republican, drew condemnation from Democrats in 2016 when, as Judiciary chairman, he blocked confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, who was nominated to the high court after Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February 2016.

At the time, Grassley cited “the Biden Rule” in holding up the process. The reference to such a “rule” stemmed from a speech given by then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 that the Senate should not fill a Supreme Court vacancy until after the presidential election.


More recently, Grassley told reporters in July that if he still chaired Judiciary and a vacancy occurred, “I would not have a hearing on it because that’s what I promised the people in 2016.”
He said Wednesday he’s not going back on his word because his answer was conditioned on being chairman and being in a position to decide whether to move forward on a nomination. Since he’s not the chairman, a post now held by Sen. Lindsey Graham, he’s not inconsistent, he said.

“If people read my entire statement, they can’t accuse me of being hypocritical because I’m not chairman now. I’m within what I said in 2016,” he said on a telephone call with Iowa reporters.



Grassley said he would not judge whether Graham’s past statements were hypocritical. Graham previously has adamantly stated that he would not move forward with a nominee under the circumstances that now exist.
“I’m not going to make a determination of some other senator being hypocritical or not because of Rule 19 of the United States Senate. I could say to you somebody’s hypocritical and not violate it but if I did that on the floor of the Senate I could be censured. So, I don’t think I ought to be questioning other people’s motives,” he said.

 
Sen. Charles Grassley insisted Wednesday that he is not a hypocrite for going back on a statement he made to constituents four years ago about whether the Senate should take up nominations for U.S. Supreme Court justice during an election year.
Grassley, an Iowa Republican, drew condemnation from Democrats in 2016 when, as Judiciary chairman, he blocked confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, who was nominated to the high court after Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February 2016.

At the time, Grassley cited “the Biden Rule” in holding up the process. The reference to such a “rule” stemmed from a speech given by then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 that the Senate should not fill a Supreme Court vacancy until after the presidential election.


More recently, Grassley told reporters in July that if he still chaired Judiciary and a vacancy occurred, “I would not have a hearing on it because that’s what I promised the people in 2016.”
He said Wednesday he’s not going back on his word because his answer was conditioned on being chairman and being in a position to decide whether to move forward on a nomination. Since he’s not the chairman, a post now held by Sen. Lindsey Graham, he’s not inconsistent, he said.

“If people read my entire statement, they can’t accuse me of being hypocritical because I’m not chairman now. I’m within what I said in 2016,” he said on a telephone call with Iowa reporters.



Grassley said he would not judge whether Graham’s past statements were hypocritical. Graham previously has adamantly stated that he would not move forward with a nominee under the circumstances that now exist.
“I’m not going to make a determination of some other senator being hypocritical or not because of Rule 19 of the United States Senate. I could say to you somebody’s hypocritical and not violate it but if I did that on the floor of the Senate I could be censured. So, I don’t think I ought to be questioning other people’s motives,” he said.

Chuck is a hypocrite.
 
Chuckles has become a farce of himself. I visited Chuckle's office in DC shortly before corona. He seemed barely coherent and had a whopping staff of 1. At least I got to play with Joni's dog (insert beatch jokes here) and she plied me with donuts. Chuckles on the other hand looked ragged. A red sweater when it was humid as hell and black teeth. My guess is the brain went out somewhere in the early 90's and chuckles might be found deceased in his office in DC holding on to a bag of Iowa popcorn. Mandatory retirement ages are sometimes good.
 
Chuck is simply confused. He can’t be accused of hypocrisy when his entire mindset is addled and frail.



 
Rs are going to blow a lot of political capital on this confirmation. Senators, like Grassley, are already on the defense over this. It's a bad spot to be in with their chances of holding onto the Senate slipping with each day.
 
According to Nate Silver, confirming before the election has at least a -10 net approval rating. That is worse than both the Trump/Biden head to head polls and the generic congressional ballot. It looks likely this will worsen the R chances come November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
It's sad to see. Back when Grassley and Harkin were our senators, I was proud of both.

Now? Smmfh. And people think Biden is becoming senile. Jeeeeesh.
I remember when Righties on HROT cheered that Harkin was retiring, and I mentioned that maybe the older guy should consider hanging it up, too? I voted for Chuck twice, of course that was quite a few years ago. He used to have some common sense, and you had the impression that he wanted to make things better for all Iowans.
Now he's a partisan hack who is 85 years old, and won't promise that he will ride off into the sunset on his fancy triple wide mower in 2022.
 
More recently, Grassley told reporters in July that if he still chaired Judiciary and a vacancy occurred, “I would not have a hearing on it because that’s what I promised the people in 2016.”
He said Wednesday he’s not going back on his word because his answer was conditioned on being chairman and being in a position to decide whether to move forward on a nomination. Since he’s not the chairman, a post now held by Sen. Lindsey Graham, he’s not inconsistent, he said.

“If people read my entire statement, they can’t accuse me of being hypocritical because I’m not chairman now. I’m within what I said in 2016,” he said on a telephone call with Iowa reporters.

That's trying to parse the language so tightly, I can't get over that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I remember when Righties on HROT cheered that Harkin was retiring, and I mentioned that maybe the older guy should consider hanging it up, too? I voted for Chuck twice, of course that was quite a few years ago. He used to have some common sense, and you had the impression that he wanted to make things better for all Iowans.
Now he's a partisan hack who is 85 years old, and won't promise that he will ride off into the sunset on his fancy triple wide mower in 2022.

He has literally been a senator longer than I've been on this earth. I really can't imagine him running for another term.
 
It is very disheartening to see these old men just lying their asses off. What a precedent this Trump era has set. I feel sorry for parents with young children. Sometimes I feel like deleting all accounts, getting rid of cable, and replacing my iPhone with a flip phone...oh and shaving my damn head.
 
I remember when Righties on HROT cheered that Harkin was retiring, and I mentioned that maybe the older guy should consider hanging it up, too? I voted for Chuck twice, of course that was quite a few years ago. He used to have some common sense, and you had the impression that he wanted to make things better for all Iowans.
Now he's a partisan hack who is 85 years old, and won't promise that he will ride off into the sunset on his fancy triple wide mower in 2022.

Yep. Chuck should have hung it up several years ago. Our founding fathers never intended to have career/life politicians. When you've reached your eighties, it's time to ride off into the sunset. Enjoy whatever time you have left having fun with the grandchildren. Go golfing or fishing or whatever you do for a hobby. Just get the f*** out of politics and let someone younger have a crack at it.
 
Who gives a rats read end about "position". Trumps going to make a choice, like Obama did. The Senate will choose to vote or note vote, which is their prerogative. Nothing makes them do it
 
Chuckles has become a farce of himself. I visited Chuckle's office in DC shortly before corona. He seemed barely coherent and had a whopping staff of 1. At least I got to play with Joni's dog (insert beatch jokes here) and she plied me with donuts. Chuckles on the other hand looked ragged. A red sweater when it was humid as hell and black teeth. My guess is the brain went out somewhere in the early 90's and chuckles might be found deceased in his office in DC holding on to a bag of Iowa popcorn. Mandatory retirement ages are sometimes good.
He is nothing like the guy I voted for...twice.
 
Chuck went to DC in 1975. I'm not sure exactly when, but at some point he stopped caring about anything other than clinging to the office.
 
According to Nate Silver, confirming before the election has at least a -10 net approval rating. That is worse than both the Trump/Biden head to head polls and the generic congressional ballot. It looks likely this will worsen the R chances come November.
You should be happy about this then. Why are you so against it if it helps your team out in a few weeks?
 
The last day the Senate is in session, until after the election, is October 9.

Lets get real, cons, this is nuts. You're telling me the Senate is properly vetting a new justice in 2 weeks?
 
You should be happy about this then. Why are you so against it if it helps your team out in a few weeks?
Because it's not what's best for the country as a whole for the long term.

Some of us think in terms beyond personal gain. It's like taxes; if raising mine helps the greater good, then I'm likely to be supportive of it.
 
Because it's not what's best for the country as a whole for the long term.

Some of us think in terms beyond personal gain. It's like taxes; if raising mine helps the greater good, then I'm likely to be supportive of it.
It's like this is a foreign concept to Trump supporters.

And the excuse for this lightspeed confirmation is equally disgusting. They claim they need it to win the election when Trump challenges the results in court.

Cons are shitting all over the court, the election, and our very democracy just to keep Trump in power. They freely admit to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
You should be happy about this then. Why are you so against it if it helps your team out in a few weeks?

Not happy about how Republicans have chosen to operate just because they'll pay a price for it. That'd be silly especially if I thought they were going to pay a price anyway. Should we just ignore the subject completely or should we make sure to remind people what's going on so they can decide if they like it or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
It's like this is a foreign concept to Trump supporters.

And the excuse for this lightspeed confirmation is equally disgusting. They claim they need it to win the election when Trump challenges the results in court.

Cons are shitting all over the court, the election, and our very democracy just to keep Trump in power. They freely admit to it.
I'm actually of the opinion, that even if Trump gets his new judge, she (assuming she's a she) will recuse herself from any election proceedings. She will, especially if she wants to be regarded with any respect. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Justice Roberts encourages it behind closed doors. Involvement in election proceedings for the man who put you on the court specifically hoping you would influence the election outcome in his favor, would seriously and permanently taint the perception of impartiality of the SCOTUS.


**(boy, that last sentence sounds awkward. maybe one of you wordsmiths can correct the grammar)
 
I'm actually of the opinion, that even if Trump gets his new judge, she (assuming she's a she) will recuse herself from any election proceedings. She will, especially if she wants to be regarded with any respect. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Justice Roberts encourages it behind closed doors. Involvement in election proceedings for the man who put you on the court specifically hoping you would influence the election outcome in his favor, would seriously and permanently taint the perception of impartiality of the SCOTUS.


**(boy, that last sentence sounds awkward. maybe one of you wordsmiths can correct the grammar)
Why would any judge that Trump nominates have the ethics to recuse themselves? It's probably a central point of his interview process. "I'd like to nominate you for this position, I really would, but, first, I'm going to need you to do me a favor".
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Why would any judge that Trump nominates have the ethics to recuse themselves? It's probably a central point of his interview process. "I'd like to nominate you for this position, I really would, but, first, I'm going to need you to do me a favor".
My TDS fantasy is that Trump does a Blagojevich with the seat and it comes out in 2021 that some wealthy religious nut is Trump's latest sugar daddy paying the vig on his foreign obligations.
 
Why would any judge that Trump nominates have the ethics to recuse themselves? It's probably a central point of his interview process. "I'd like to nominate you for this position, I really would, but, first, I'm going to need you to do me a favor".
My reasoning is that during any sort of confirmation hearing this question is almost sure to be asked. Now, if Mitch goes right from nomination to vote, then all bets are off.
 
My reasoning is that during any sort of confirmation hearing this question is almost sure to be asked. Now, if Mitch goes right from nomination to vote, then all bets are off.
It's refreshing to see such naivety still exists in the world. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT