Will Republicans stand by their very own statements, or be part of McConnell in probably the most profound hypocrisy


As McConnell spun his rule straight from his nethers, Republicans in 2016 did the identical factor that Republicans have lengthy demonstrated as their major attribute: They fell in line. And if falling in line required mendacity about Senate guidelines, the Structure, or historical past, they have been keen to go there, even when the lies have been apparent. Mother Jones has compiled an inventory of Republican senators who 4 brief years in the past engaged in chest pounding over the flawed, flawed, wrongness of voting on a Supreme Court docket nominee in an election yr. FactCheck.org has additionally compiled a set of statements made by Republicans in 2016—and after—that positively should be on the lips of each reporter, and constituent, who speaks to them from now till January. Lastly, Cosmopolitan put collectively such an inventory again in February of 2017, for the specific function of holding Republicans true to their very own statements.

In fact each checklist is headed by McConnell.


John Cornyn (from his own website): “I imagine the American individuals should have a voice within the choice of the subsequent Supreme Court docket Justice, and one of the simplest ways to make sure that occurs is to have the Senate take into account a nomination made by the subsequent President.”

Ted Cruz “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court docket emptiness was nominated and confirmed in an election yr. There’s a lengthy custom that you just don’t do that in an election yr.”

Marco Rubio: “The Senate shouldn’t be transferring ahead on it till after the election. Senator McConnell, the bulk chief, has already made that clear. And I agree with that. There’s been precedent established over 80 years that, within the final yr, particularly within the final 11 months, you would not have a lame-duck president make a lifetime appointment to the very best court docket on the land.”

Also Marco Rubio: “Primary, I don’t suppose we needs to be transferring on a nominee within the final yr of this president’s time period—I’d say that if it was a Republican president.”

Lindsey Graham: “If a gap comes within the final yr of President Trump’s time period, and the first course of has began, we’ll wait to the subsequent election”


Cory Gardner: “I believe we’re too near the election. The president who’s elected in November needs to be the one who makes this choice.” (this assertion made in February, ten months earlier than the upcoming election. Gardner at first stated he would take into account a nominee for Obama, earlier than McConnell pressured Gardner to recant.)

Jim Inhofe: “It makes the present presidential election all that extra vital as not solely are the subsequent 4 years in play, however a whole technology of Individuals will likely be impacted by the stability of the court docket and its rulings. … I’ll oppose this nomination as I firmly imagine we should let the individuals resolve the Supreme Court docket’s future.”

Chuck Grassley: “Following the loss of life of Justice Scalia as Individuals have been starting to solid their votes for the subsequent President, I stated that we’d transfer ahead with the subsequent President’s nomination to the Supreme Court docket, no matter who received. The President has made his choice and that’s what we’ll do.”

Also Chuck Grassley“A lifetime appointment that would dramatically influence particular person freedoms and alter the course of the court docket for no less than a technology is just too vital to get slowed down in politics. The American individuals shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

Still more Grassley — Grassley invited Merrick Garland to a breakfast assembly, to not take into account him as a candidate, however to ”clarify why he won’t maintain hearings.”

Joni Ernst: “We’ll see what the individuals say this fall and our subsequent president, no matter celebration, will likely be making that nomination.” 

Thom Tillis (from his own web site): “The marketing campaign is already beneath method. It’s important to the establishment of the Senate and to the very well being of our republic to not launch our nation right into a partisan, divisive affirmation battle throughout the exact same time the American individuals are casting their ballots to elect our subsequent president.” 

Ron Johnson: “I strongly agree that the American individuals ought to resolve the longer term course of the Supreme Court docket by their votes for president and the bulk celebration within the U.S. Senate.”

In 2016, Susan Collins called for public hearings on Merrick Garland and praised the nominee. This was, after all, pre falling in line.

Ditto Lisa Murkowski, who at first supported holding hearings, solely to come back again and “revoke” her assist after a dialog with Grassley. “Senator Murkowski respects the choice of the chair and members of the Judiciary Committee to not maintain hearings on the nominee.” 

As a particular bonus, here’s Ted Cruz not simply proclaiming that there needs to be no vote earlier than the election, however warning about how Merrick Garland is strictly the form of nominee you might count on … from Donald Trump: “Merrick Garland is strictly the kind of Supreme Court docket nominee you get if you make offers in Washington D.C. A so-called ‘average’ Democrat nominee is exactly the form of deal that Donald Trump has instructed us he would make – somebody who would rule together with different liberals on the bench like Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor… We can not afford to lose the Supreme Court docket for generations to come back by nominating or confirming somebody {that a} dealmaker like Donald Trump would assist… I proudly stand with my Republican colleagues in our shared perception – our recommendation and consent – that we should always not vote on any nominee till the subsequent president is sworn into workplace. The Individuals will resolve. I commend Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley for holding the road and making certain that We the Individuals get to train our authority to resolve the course of the Supreme Court docket and the Invoice of Rights.”