Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t wait for Justice Antonin Scalia’s body to reach room temperature before saying he would give any President Obama nominee a fair hearing in the Senate before rejecting the choice along partisan lines.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” said McConnell in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
The Senate’s number one Dem followed up with a warning for Republicans not to block Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, claiming such an action would be an abdication of their duties.
“Pursuing their radical strategy in a quixotic quest to deny the basic fact that the American people elected President Obama – twice — would rank among the most rash and reckless actions in the history of the Senate. And the consequences will reverberate for decades,” claimed Senator Harry Reid
Immediately afterwards, signs that Republican unity was wavering could be found.
“I think we fall into the trap if just simply say sight unseen, we fall into the trap of being obstructionists,” North Carolina’s Republican Senator Thom Tillis said, “If he puts forth someone that we think is in the mold of President Obama’s vision for America, then we’ll use every device available to block that nomination.”
Finally, GOP Senator Dean Heller, also from Nevada, is backing the Progressive power play, adding a new twist.
“The chances of approving a new nominee are slim, but Nevadans should have a voice in the process. That’s why I encourage the President to use this opportunity to put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda on the nation’s highest court,” Heller said, adding “Should he decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows, maybe it’ll be a Nevadan,” Heller said, in an apparent reference to Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval.
Sandoval is a former U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada judge. Prior to that, he was the Nevada’s Attorney General.
I wonder if any of these nit-wits have considered looking at someone who’ll ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ instead of trying to avoid looking bad to members of the opposite party?