GOP leader: No vote Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, ever

[No means no]

WASHINGTON – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, doubling
down on his opposition to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court
nominee, said Sunday there’s no way the Republican-controlled
Senate will hold a confirmation vote — not even after the
November election.

In the party-line fight over whether to hold a confirmation vote
on Merrick Garland, Republicans have insisted on allowing the
next president to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice
Antonin Scalia. But that has raised speculation about what might
happen if a Democrat wins in November: Would the Senate’s GOP
members relent and accept Garland, who has a relatively moderate
record? Or would Obama allow the next president to choose?

McConnell dismissed the notion of a lame-duck confirmation vote.

“I can’t imagine that a Republican-majority Senate, even if it
were soon to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge who
would move the court dramatically to the left,” he said on “Fox
News Sunday.” “That’s not going to happen.”

McConnell first made his position known hours after Scalia’s
death last month, saying that the Senate would not confirm an
Obama nominee in an election year, let alone hold hearings. He
even ruled out meeting the president’s pick, a standard courtesy.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Obama will not
withdraw Garland’s name. “We will stand by him from now until he
is confirmed and he’s sitting on the Supreme Court,” McDonough
said, also on Fox News.

Garland, 63, a former federal prosecutor who supervised the
Oklahoma City bombing case, is chief judge of the court of
appeals for the District of Columbia. He has a record as a
cautious centrist.

McConnell’s statements Sunday came as some Republicans are
suggesting Garland get a hearing and a vote. On Friday, Sen.
Mark Kirk of Illinois said his colleagues should just “man up
and take a vote.”

And a growing number of Republicans are willing to meet with
Garland, including Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona. He floated the
idea of considering Garland’s nomination in the post-election
session because “between him and somebody that a President
Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear,” he said,
referring to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Democrats are using the issue against Republicans facing re-
election, hoping for leverage to retake the Senate after the
November election. McConnell noted Kirk is running for re-
election this fall.

Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, on
Sunday predicted Garland would prevail.

“Mitch McConnell has said a lot of things,” Reid said on NBC’s
“Meet the Press.” “But his Republican senators are not going to
go over that cliff with him.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a GOP candidate for president, made waves
Saturday by suggesting he would be open to nominating Garland if
elected. “He received, you know, overwhelming support, I think
even from Sen. (Orrin) Hatch, so of course we’d think about it,”
Kasich said in an interview for CBS’s “Face the Nation” that
aired Sunday. Kasich was referring to Garland’s appointment to
the federal bench during President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Later, Kasich walked back. “In an effort to be polite today,
apparently I’ve created a little bit of a situation,” he said.
“He’s not going to be my pick for the Supreme Court.”

Hillary Clinton’s campaign would not say whether she would
commit to Garland for the long haul. Clinton has said she has “a
bunch of litmus tests” for her potential nominees, including
assurance that the Roe v. Wade abortion decision “is settled
law.”

Her Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, said that
if he won, he would ask Obama to withdraw Garland’s nomination.
Garland “would not have been my nominee,” Sanders said, even
though he would support him. He has an “incredibly strong
judicial record,” Sanders said.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/world/2016/03/20/senate-vote-
obamas-supreme-court-nominee-election/82059790/