Temperature rises on Grassley as SCOTUS fight escalates

[cigaretteman]

Iowans are going to start hearing a lot more about U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s prominent role in the fight over the nomination of the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Grassley, Iowa’s senior senator and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has refused to consider a court nomination from incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama, a position widely supported by Republicans in Washington but sharply criticized by Democrats.

He formalized that refusal on Tuesday, with a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, in which he said his committee would not even hold hearings on an Obama nominee and delay consideration of a new justice until a new president takes office in 2017.

Even before that, though, advertisements supporting and opposing his position were reaching his Iowa constituents.

A group called the Judicial Crisis Network is airing radio, TV and digital ads thanking Grassley for “letting the people decide” the next justice through their vote in the November presidential race. Similar ads are running in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania as well.

On the other side, a group known as Justice Not Politics (headed by former Iowa lieutenant governors Joy Corning and Sally Pederson) is spending more than $100,000 for a weeklong flight of TV ads in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids that feature former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor calling for an immediate appointment to the court.

MORE: Grassley hasn't heeded White House invite on SCOTUS vacancy

Grassley typically rates as the most popular elected official in the state of Iowa, but his hard-line political position in this case is not without risks. He’s seeking re-election to a seventh term in the Senate this November, and there are signs Democrats in Iowa and Washington will attempt to make Republicans’ refusal to vet a nominee an election-defining issue.

“Preemptively denying the president's Supreme Court nominee a hearing on his or her qualifications, without even waiting for the president to name a nominee, is partisan obstructionism at its worst,” Iowa Democratic Party spokesman Josh Levitt said in a statement on Tuesday. “Grassley and his Republican colleagues have decided to close their eyes and cover their ears instead of doing their jobs.”

Iowa state senator and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Rob Hogg called Grassley’s refusal to consider a nominee a “game-changer” in what would otherwise be a long-shot challenge.

“This makes us one of the most competitive races in the country,” Hogg said. “The vast majority of Iowans want the Senate to do its job, they want Congress to work and this is just more obstruction. It is Example A of a Congress that is no longer functioning.”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ey-sidesteps-constitution-judiciary/80424548/
A spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, R-Nevada, chimed in with a statement suggesting Grassley’s legacy could be at stake.

"Senator Grassley will go down in history as the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist Judiciary chair in history,” Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said. “That's not much of a legacy.”

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Jeff Kaufmann backed Grassley in a statement on Tuesday, echoing the argument that delaying consideration of a nominee will give voters a voice in the appointment.

“The American people deserve a chance to weigh in on the next Supreme Court justice of the United States,” Kaufmann said. “Re-electing Sen. Chuck Grassley, and sending him a Republican president to work with, are some of the Republican Party of Iowa's top priorities this year.”

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/...ses-grassley-scotus-fight-escalates/80818602/

 

[ottumwan in tx]

this is one thing politicians should fall on the sword for , but they probably won't have the guts

 

[aflachawk]

this is one thing politicians should fall on the sword for , but they probably won't have the guts

I am betting the Republicans know that and will stay strong. They will lose much more by caving than staying the course. As far as trying to take out Grassley over this? You never know but good luck on that one. People's opinion are too set one way or the other on him. Ads will not matter

 

[joelbc1]

As I mentioned in an earlier thread regarding this topic.....Senator Grassley is full of sh^t on this one. He has shown again he is too old be an effective legislator.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

if Obama nominates another communist it is the peoples' duty and the politicians' duty to not say yes, to enemies of the state

 

[gonegolfing]

Great legislator and always has been. The Republicans are in the perfect position here. Americans don't want Obama nominating another whacko to the court, and the more of an election year issue it becomes, the better it is for Republicans. Too bad to lose one of the greatest judges in history, but it is unlikely the current President has much chance of adding another non-constitutionalist to the court.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

this is one thing politicians should fall on the sword for , but they probably won't have the guts

I wish they would all fall on swords. Then maybe we could have a positive outcome.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Great legislator and always has been. The Republicans are in the perfect position here. Americans don't want Obama nominating another whacko to the court, and the more of an election year issue it becomes, the better it is for Republicans. Too bad to lose one of the greatest judges in history, but it is unlikely the current President has much chance of adding another non-constitutionalist to the court.

It would be bad to replace one whacko with another.

 

[rocketclone]

Joe Biden has already addressed this. Pretty simple really, you wait until after the election.

 

[cigaretteman]

Joe Biden has already addressed this. Pretty simple really, you wait until after the election.

If you're a Republican under pressure — or concerned about vulnerable blue-state GOP incumbents being under pressure — for considering holding up Obama's to-be-determined pick, what Biden said would seem to be pretty damning stuff.

But in the end, the vice president's past words probably don't fundamentally shift the high-stakes debate.

Here's how Biden defends it: He says he was speaking about a hypothetical (there was no court vacancy at the time). He was also speaking in June of an election year — not February — which is around the time something called the Thurmond Rule has traditionally kicked in. (Though congressional experts say the Thurmond Rule is less an actual rule and more of a guideline that both parties call on when politically expedient on when the Senate can shut down the judicial confirmation process.)

[The 5 ways Senate Republicans are talking about the Supreme Court vacancy]

But the real reason Biden's comments probably won't give Republicans the edge is that there was likely never going to be a consensus among the American people on this anyway. And there's too much gray area in his comments for this to be seen as a game-changer.

A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that Americans are split evenly on whether the Senate should vote on Obama's pick or wait until next year. Dig deeper into the results and you'll see there's little room for that number to change. A full 81 percent of Democrats polled say the Senate should consider Obama's pick — the same percentage of Republicans polled who say the Senate should wait to consider the next president's pick.

In other words, Americans view this Supreme Court battle through the same lens they view most events in Washington these days — through their politics.

What Biden's 1992 comments show more than anything is that politicians do the same, especially when it comes to the forever that is approving a president's Supreme Court nomination.

There are a handful of examples of major players in the Senate appearing to flip-flop — depending on the president doing the nominating — on whether the Senate can and should block Supreme Court nominations in an election year, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). As we noted, though, not all of the examples are so clearly self-contradictory. As in Biden's case, questions are raised of when this no-nominees period should begin and whether the Senate shouldn't confirm any justices or simply should be extra-selective in doing so.

Still, what today's players said yesterday doesn't seem to have changed a significant number of people's minds, if any at all.

"You can have all the competing quotes you want," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning. "They amount to nothing."

Schumer was making the case, according to polls from Pew Research Center and Fox News, that a majority of Americans (between 56 and 62 percent) think the Senate should vote on Obama's pick. But Schumer's broader point about Biden stands: When there's so much discrepancy on both sides, it's difficult for one in particular to stand out.

That's why Biden's 1992 comments are less of a watershed moment in today's Supreme Court drama and just one more example of politicians saying things that make political sense at the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mments-arent-a-silver-bullet-for-republicans/

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Great legislator and always has been. The Republicans are in the perfect position here. Americans don't want Obama nominating another whacko to the court, and the more of an election year issue it becomes, the better it is for Republicans. Too bad to lose one of the greatest judges in history, but it is unlikely the current President has much chance of adding another non-constitutionalist to the court.

Who would this be on the Supreme Court? "Non-constitutionalist" is just a term one who is clueless uses for judges that don't tow their partisan line.

 

[joelbc1]

Who would this be on the Supreme Court? "Non-constitutionalist" is just a term one who is clueless uses for judges that don't tow their partisan line.

gone...what the hell is a "non-Constiutionalist" judge? Aren't (and don't) all SC Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution (as they interpret it)? That is why we have courts.

 

[Huey Grey]

Joe Biden has already addressed this. Pretty simple really, you wait until after the election.

Quote on Biden discussing the death of a Supreme Court judge a full year away from a new President? Oh wait. That's right. It never happened.

 

[naturalmwa]

I am betting the Republicans know that and will stay strong. They will lose much more by caving than staying the course. As far as trying to take out Grassley over this? You never know but good luck on that one. People's opinion are too set one way or the other on him. Ads will not matter

I disagree. The Rs are losing a big opportunity by not having hearings. Think about it. Obama is going to nominate a pro choice justice. You spend weeks grilling them about every part of Roe. You then vote him down. You then go to your base and sell them that you are fighting for babies and need just one more SCOTUS vote to save them. Rs would sweep to victory. Rs are playing this all wrong. They should be giddy with the idea of making abortion the main issue. Unless Abortion isn't such a winning issue after all.

 

[theIowaHawk]

A bit funny that the group claiming that Obama is the "most divisive" in history is attempting to further divide the country along silly partisan lines in a relatively long-lasting way.

 

[Huey Grey]

I disagree. The Rs are losing a big opportunity by not having hearings. Think about it. Obama is going to nominate a pro choice justice. You spend weeks grilling them about every part of Roe. You then vote him down. You then go to your base and sell them that you are fighting for babies and need just one more SCOTUS vote to save them. Rs would sweep to victory. Rs are playing this all wrong. They should be giddy with the idea of making abortion the main issue. Unless Abortion isn't such a winning issue after all.

The fact that their meeting to decide on whether to go ahead with hearings was so short tells you everything we need to know. They obviously didn't spend any time discussing fall out from this blockage, nor what they might have to gain by allowing hearings. Exceptionally poor strategy on their part. Knee jerk reaction.

 

[Huey Grey]

A bit funny that the group claiming that Obama is the "most divisive" in history is attempting to further divide the country along silly partisan lines in a relatively long-lasting way.

Come on now. A guy from a quarter century ago said the same exact thing in a fantasy question and answer session. Clearly the Dems are still the ones to blame.

 

[joelbc1]

Come on now. A guy from a quarter century ago said the same exact thing in a fantasy question and answer session. Clearly the Dems are still the ones to blame.

well Huey....I bet Obama is certainly to blame!

 

[TexMichFan]

Are the rising temperatures on Grassley another effect of Global Warming or is this a political climate issue?

 

[SoFla-Hawkeye]

I love how folks whine for term limits and then allow a guy like Grassley to run for his 7th term. Of course when talking about term limits we really only mean for your candidates.

 

[TexMichFan]

I love how folks whine for term limits and then allow a guy like Grassley to run for his 7th term. Of course when talking about term limits we really only mean for your candidates.

Not me - I am for term limits on all of them.

 

[BondHawk]

I'm not going to buy Chuck's argument on this unless he can somehow illustrate it with a story of a fire-breathing dragon on a piece of tagboard. Or convince me that the nominee will no longer allow him to mow his own lawn - three mowers at a time. That would be a game changer.

 

[cigaretteman]

Not me - I am for term limits on all of them.

And, as always, I'll remind you that we already have them, they're called elections. Why do you want to deprive people of the ability to vote for someone they would like to keep in office? Term limits are simply restricting the right of voters to elect the person they choose to vote for, for no good reason.

 

[TexMichFan]

I'm not going to buy Chuck's argument on this unless he can somehow illustrate it with a story of a fire-breathing dragon on a piece of tagboard. Or convince me that the nominee will no longer allow him to mow his own lawn - three mowers at a time. That would be a game changer.

 

[TexMichFan]

And, as always, I'll remind you that we already have them, they're called elections. Why do you want to deprive people of the ability to vote for someone they would like to keep in office? Term limits are simply restricting the right of voters to elect the person they choose to vote for, for no good reason.

and as always I will disagree with you.

I want the term limits like we use for Presidents and Governors.

 

[joelbc1]

and as always I will disagree with you.

I want the term limits like we use for Presidents and Governors.

Iowa has no term limits. That's why we have Teflon. I understand your frustration, as I share it too. However, this nation was founded upon the electorate making the decision on who represents them. We have pretty much free elections in the nation all the time. No need to limit choices....

 

[cigaretteman]

Iowa has no term limits. That's why we have Teflon. I understand your frustration, as I share it too. However, this nation was founded upon the electorate making the decision on who represents them. We have pretty much free elections in the nation all the time. No need to limit choices....

Not to mention that term limits have been a disaster everywhere they've been tried as they deprive state legislatures of experienced legislators, who understand the legislative process and crucial institutional memory of past legislative efforts. They simply result in a vast influx of clueless newcomers that take time to understand the workings of the legislatures.

 

[Uwe.Blab]

Dumb move by Grassley and McConnell. We all know they were going to resist it all the way but why broadcast that you will not entertain doing your job? They could hold hearings, ask questions, then vote and decline the nominee.

Deciding to decline a nominee before one is even named is bad form.

Just like it would be bad form for Obama NOT to nominate someone. It is part of his job as president. The senate has a job to vote on the nominee.

 

[Tom Paris]

Great legislator and always has been. The Republicans are in the perfect position here. Americans don't want Obama nominating another whacko to the court, and the more of an election year issue it becomes, the better it is for Republicans. Too bad to lose one of the greatest judges in history, but it is unlikely the current President has much chance of adding another non-constitutionalist to the court.

Speak for yourself. This kind of obstructionist, hypocritical thinking may just push my vote to Hillary over any con. They are changing the rules of the game. Stupid ass two party system.

 

[Mid IA Hawk]

This won't make a bit of difference in the Senatorial race. Grassley will win easily. The last couple of elections have been blowouts in his favor.

 

[cigaretteman]

This won't make a bit of difference in the Senatorial race. Grassley will win easily. The last couple of elections have been blowouts in his favor.

Yep, Iowans love their incumbents. Grassley will be re-elected until he either decides not to run or dies in office.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Go easy on Grassley, folks. He's seriously senile.

 

[The Tradition]

I'm not going to buy Chuck's argument on this unless he can somehow illustrate it with a story of a fire-breathing dragon on a piece of tagboard. Or convince me that the nominee will no longer allow him to mow his own lawn - three mowers at a time. That would be a game changer.

I'm sorry, but the three mowers at one time thing was freaking AWESOME!

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/249937-grassleys-lawn-faces-a-3-mower-system

 

[lucas80]

I love my state. I have voted for Grassley way back when. But, dear God he's getting to be an embarrassment. My one hope for not having a hearing to nominate a replacement for Scalia is I think Grassley is slipping and he'd make the whole state look like a bunch of corn cobs as he stumbles over himself during the hearing, forgets things, and starts addressing dead relatives.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Grassley will be hailed as a hero who stood up to a radical President that has been undermining the US, the Constitution, and the office of the President for 8 years.

One final FU to the jerk before his behind is kicked out of the WH for good.

 

[Pinehawk]

I've voted for Grassley before, but I won't again.

Time for a change.

 

[joelbc1]

Grassley will be hailed as a hero who stood up to a radical President that has been undermining the US, the Constitution, and the office of the President for 8 years.

One final FU to the jerk before his behind is kicked out of the WH for good.

"kicked out"?? how so? He won 2 general election with majorities in the popular vote both time....Have to go back to Reagan to find a POTUS who has won more convincingly...twice. PF, I really think you are ignorant as to American political history. Or else just plain stupid...and like Ron White...you can't fix stupid.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

"kicked out"?? how so? He won 2 general election with majorities in the popular vote both time....Have to go back to Reagan to find a POTUS who has won more convincingly...twice. PF, I really think you are ignorant as to American political history. Or else just plain stupid...and like Ron White...you can't fix stupid.

okay great he got 20% of the country to vote for him. the other 80% of us are counting down the days until this hack leaves.

also the 2014 elections were the final indictment against this mistake of a presidency.

 

[theiacowtipper]

okay great he got 20% of the country to vote for him. the other 80% of us are counting down the days until this hack leaves.

also the 2014 elections were the final indictment against this mistake of a presidency.

According to Rasmussen, Obama's daily public opinion poll approval was at 51%. Once again, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

 

[TexMichFan]

Iowa has no term limits. That's why we have Teflon. I understand your frustration, as I share it too. However, this nation was founded upon the electorate making the decision on who represents them. We have pretty much free elections in the nation all the time. No need to limit choices....

In a way we are limiting choices.

If someone can serve for 20-30 years or more we get the benefit of only their ideas and thoughts. As states have become more solidly blue or red our representatives don't have to worry about reelections they become more and more entrenched on their views. It is interesting that every election cycle the ones that are in contested states move towards the middle while the ones in solid states hold to extremes.

It is voters in the state making the choose to place limits.

Not to mention that term limits have been a disaster everywhere they've been tried as they deprive state legislatures of experienced legislators, who understand the legislative process and crucial institutional memory of past legislative efforts. They simply result in a vast influx of clueless newcomers that take time to understand the workings of the legislatures.

Is there really a difference between states where there are term limits and those where there is not?