GOP Sen. Jeff Flake: It’s Time For The Senate To Finally Consider Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland

Politico reports:

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake has maintained for months that Republicans should take up Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination if it looks like the presidential contest is a lost cause for the GOP. It’s looking about that time, Flake said in an interview on Thursday.

“I said if we were in a position like we were in in ’96 and we pretty much knew the outcome that we ought to move forward. But I think we passed that awhile ago,” Flake said. “If Hillary Clinton is president-elect then we should move forward with hearings in the lame duck. That’s what I’m encouraging my colleagues to do.”

The political calculus is straightforward: Better to deal with Garland now and avoid swallowing a more liberal nominee from Hillary Clinton. Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not explicitly say that he expects Clinton will win. But he all but admitted that Donald Trump — whom Flake opposes — is toast.

John McCain has vowed that the Senate will block ANY nominee put forward by Hillary.

  • Rick James Brown

    Uh….ya think? (Obama should WITHDRAW Garland’s nomination now, and nominate, or let Hillary nominate, someone much more liberal!)

    • Gay Fordham Prep Grad

      I am of two minds on that one. Garland has been a trooper through this whole process, I would not like to see his legs cut out from under him. But the idea that Hillary would pick for the top court right off the bat (say the afternoon of 11/9) is too delicious to pass up.

      • Robincho

        If by 11/9/16 you mean 1/20/17, then yes…

    • lymis

      Obama should stick to his nomination. It was his to make, and it’s the Senate’s job to review it.

      • Chucktech

        And let the rat bastards in the Senate rush to his confirmation after they LOSE and after having sanctimoniously quacked that the next president should pick Scalia’s successor?? No. Fuck that shit.

        • lymis

          I don’t have a particular problem with the Republicans publicly admitting that they are lying hypocrites who have a purely partisan agenda.

          If Garland chooses to withdraw, that’s fine. But Obama shouldn’t withdraw him.

      • IamM

        I would withdraw the nomination until after the election, just to make the point that he can nominate someone else if he chooses.

        It should be made clear going forward that the President can interpret failure to have hearings on a nominee in a timely manner as a ‘No’ and nominate someone else not necessarily more to the Senate majority’s liking.

    • SelectFromWhere

      Hillary nominating someone won’t be a problem–Ginsburg would have probably retired already if there had been a chance of a progressive replacement.

    • Kruhn

      Agreed. In for a penny, in for a pound!

  • Michael Smith

    I somewhat expect them to confirm Garland if Trump loses and they lose the Senate, but Republicans can be unpredictable these days so I don’t think it’s a sure thing.

    • Tor

      If Clinton wins, and the D’s take the Senate, the D’s should refuse to confirm until the new President is sworn in, and makes her own selection.

      • Michael Smith

        Republicans could still confirm in a lame duck session unless Obama withdraws the nomination.

        • Tor

          The likelihood of a super-majority of Republicans is unlikely, IMHO.

        • boatboy_srq

          Or unless Garland requests his nomination be withdrawn.

      • another_steve

        I agree. Regardless of whether the Democrats take the Senate, Garland should withdraw with a gracious, “I believe President-Elect Clinton should have the opportunity to nominate her own Supreme Court justice for this seat.”

        If Clinton wants to renominate him, fine. But it should be her choice.

        • lymis

          I could live with that. I don’t agree with the idea that Obama should withdraw the nomination.

      • RoFaWh

        At what date do newly elected members of Congress take their seats?

        • Chucktech

          IIRC, January 2nd.

        • Tor

          January 3.

  • canoebum

    They should have taken it up six fucking months ago, but they’re scumbag Republicans, so their responsibilities and a properly functioning government figure low on their priority list.

  • PickyPecker
  • Gustav2

    Gee, none of us predicted this!

  • Jacob

    Thank you Senator but it’s too late for sanity from your party. You rolled, you crapped out. And the crap is Trump.

    • Judas Peckerwood

      It’s not even sanity, it’s cynical political maneuvering.

    • Brianna Amoré

      AND your Trump card sucked. Bigly.

  • Mike C

    I’d love hear Hillary say, “Too late, you had your chance. Now meet Justice Obama.”

    • lattebud

      Justice Michele Obama

      • That would drive them crazy.

        Justice Michelle: “Not only is the government going to mandate broccoli, but carrots will be required too!”

        (Google “Scalia broccoli” for those that don’t get the reference.)

        • Kruhn

          Naughty, naughty, Patrick! LOL

        • Nowhereman

          I always think of George H W Bush when the topic of broccoli comes up. Scalia’s name always reminds me of applesauce and argle bargle.

        • cleos_mom

          Not broccoli. I’d sooner move to Mauritania.

        • DuaneBidoux

          Wow! Fresh vegetables? That will surely lead to communism.

          I’m a teacher and the processed junk we are serving our kids is a crime-so more power to her mandate.

      • Librarykid

        UP 10,000 Times. I wanted her to be Hillary’s Veep. As a Supreme Court Justice, she would be a satisfactory finger in the eye of the GOP.

      • StraightGrandmother

        AWESOME! Idea, brilliant! I have never heard this idea before but I do love it.

      • StraightGrandmother

        After Michelle she could nominate Evan Wolfson to bookend her legacy.

      • Marti386

        TWO Obamas! Ginsburg wants to retire.

    • bkmn

      Just saw that 538 has a 70% chance Dems will control the Senate.

      • FAEN

        I really hope Ross can beat Burr.

        • bkmn

          I wouldn’t mind if we had extra wiggle room since there are rumors that Manchin might leave the Democratic party – don’t know if it would be to become a GOP or Indy. I also would not mind if we could swing the House too so we could have at least two years to get things done with a lot less obstructionism.

          • FAEN

            Amen to that.

          • SelectFromWhere

            Swinging the House is probably unattainable, but I’m feeling better and better about the Senate.

        • bkmn

          Good turnout for Hillary should help Ross.

          • Joe in PA

            but what about McGinty? 🙁 I heard her speak the other day on NPR, she is kinda pathetic. At least w/ respect to campaigning. I’m not hopeful. 🙁

          • Stubenville

            The whole McGinty candidacy has been a disaster. All she seems to talk about is Planned Parenthood. I’m afraid Toomey will squeak back in.

          • FAEN

            Yes. The race is very close-hope Ross can pull it out. Burr is beyond worthless.

      • JR

        Holy shit!


        (yes, I’m a nerd, so I can still say “wewt”.)

      • GeneInSJ

        I’ve been checking that site a few times every day for weeks now.

      • Nowhereman

        Let’s hope that Rubio and McCain are among the exodus.

      • StraightGrandmother

        Really? OMG, Sweep! Sweep! Sweep!
        This is almost to good to be true.

    • dafs

      I wouldn’t wish that fate on Obama. Dude needs some rest.

      • Judas Peckerwood

        Don’t know about that — lately he’s been looking like he’s just getting warmed up.

        • Mike C

          And if it was such a stressful job people wouldn’t stay on the bench 25, 35, 40 years.

      • thatotherjean

        He did say a while back that he didn’t want the job. Maybe Michelle does?

        • SelectFromWhere

          Well, of course he’s going to say that to counter a pre-empt by the conservatives. Maybe he can be the 2nd or 3rd one picked at least.

        • Traxley Launderette

          Well, Malia’s off at college, and Sasha soon will, also, so…

          • StraightGrandmother

            I believe Malia is taking a gap year so she won’t go to Harvard until next fall.

      • Miji

        I also think that he’d like to be able to speak his mind when he pleases. I think having to maintain that air of impartiality and be non-political would be stifling.


      Justice Anita Hill

      • bkmn

        Clarence Thomas would resign in 3..2..1

        • charemor

          Is he still alive, or is that simply his carcass perched up in a chair?

          • Joe in PA

            You’re thinking of Pat Robertson.

          • bkmn

            No one can tell.

          • Steverino

            Put a pubic hair on his Coke can, that will revive him.

          • saucetin

            What, to floss w/ it?

          • Nowhereman

            He really misses Scalia. I could see him retiring.

      • Nowhereman

        I heard her name mentioned elsewhere, too. She definitely has the qualifications. It would be a great karmic kickback for Clarence Thomas.

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Justice Bill Clinton

      • Vista-Cruiser

        No, Barack Obama is too old and conservative, and Bill Clinton is WAY too old and conservative.

        In order to help offset Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy, our next Supreme Court justice needs to be a thirty-year old mixed race crossfitting kickboxing radical lesbian who has four living great-grandmothers.

    • abqdan

      He’s said a number of times he doesn’t want to be nominated, and last week he said he’s going to concentrate with Eric Holder on resolving the issues with redistricting – which would be a huge move forward for Democracy. So I’m afraid as sweet as that would be, it won’t happen.

      • Nowhereman

        I believe he’s mentioned wanting to work on improving the criminal justice system, too. I think that both he and Michele will be doing a lot of public service after the White House.

    • TJay229

      That would be great, but Michelle would be better. A young Black woman…. Perfect

      • PickyPecker

        Agreed. If only she were lesbian – perfection! 🙂

        • Maggie 4NoH8

          Alex Jones (I believe) has confirmed her lesbianism.

          • Nowhereman

            Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh are experts at knowing which women are lesbians. According to them, it’s any woman who would not go out with them. Also, I think their latest rumor has Hillary Clinton gay-married to Huma Abadin.

          • RoFaWh

            What do lesbians smell like?

        • Dagoril

          I believe Wanda Sykes is available.

        • (((GC)))

          And atheist, and polyamorous! 🙂

      • Steverino

        I would like Kamala Harris, but she is running (and will win easily) to be retiring Barbara Boxer’s replacement for Barbara’s California Senate seat.

        • TJay229

          Michelle’s approval rating are miles above Kamala’s. Plus that would back Republicans up against the wall… Denying the first Black Woman a seat…. It would be a beautiful nightmare for them.

    • Rocco Gibraltar

      There’s only been one president who has gone on to serve on the Supreme Court and he became the chief justice. That was William Howard Taft. Time for a second, I should say.

    • Kruhn

      Or even Justice Barack Hussein Obama. If Taft could do it, Barack should too.

    • bambinoitaliano

      Yup. I’m hoping Obama change his mind and nominate someone more radical and wait for Hillary to appoint.

      • saucetin

        Then they couldn’t relocate to Chicago. I that plan is in the works.

    • Librarykid

      UP 10,000 Times!

    • StraightGrandmother

      In my dreams, in my dreams.
      I know Obama has given enough of himself already just by being President, but oh my a Senate Majority and the thought of Justice Obama makes my heart flutter.

    • Paul
    • cleos_mom

      I’m sure he’d want to take some time off at the very least; but the next President might make a few more appointments. The Notorious RBG is the oldest but of course there could always be another death or resignation — Scalia was actually a year younger than GInsburg.

      During the primary season, my dream scenario if Bernie Sanders won was be Hillary Clinton and Obama on the Court.

  • Sorry, bub, but no. Your party kept insisting the next President should get that chance, based on the presumption that next President would be a Republican. Then members of your own party began saying President Clinton shouldn’t get any SCOTUS nominations, ever — including Senator John McCain, your fellow Arizonan Senator.

    Your and your party’s motives in this have been abundantly clear: Party before country.

    It’s been good to hear you denounce Donald Trump — really, that’s great. But that particular mess is and ought to be a far greater priority for you. You need to deal with the fact your nominee just announced himself to be a domestic insurrectionist.

  • Cuberly
  • you wanted to play chicken?
    my gut reaction is to say, fuck no, fuck you, and fuck off.

  • greenmanTN

    Is it just this picture or does his face always look like a cover portrait on a rolled-up magazine?

  • Brad Lathem

    Nope, the time for that was long ago. Now is the time to vote out the do-nothing obstructionist grabbers of pussies and replace them with a government that works.

  • Sean Williams

    Too late! We got together and decided to nominate RuPaul.

    Ya’ll done bet on the wrong dog.

  • Oscarlating Wildely

    Garland was quasi liberal. You wouldn’t even consider him. Now you’re losing and he’s looking a lot better than what we could find.

    Next up when we win the Senate, someone like this strapping young lad– and rumor has it he’s a bad hombre

  • Pollos Hermanos

    Merrick is going to be confirmed at warp speed if (when) Clinton wins and if the GOP loses the majority.

    The GOP won’t risk letting her pick somebody younger and more liberal especially if the Democrats control the hearings after 1/3/17.

    • unless Obama pulls Garland’s nomination.

      • PickyPecker

        Or, better yet. Perhaps a deal was cut with Garland prior to his nomination stating he would withdraw immediately after a Clinton victory.

      • Pollos Hermanos


        Either way Scalia is dead and a moderate to liberal is going to replace him.

    • teeveedub

      It totally depends on the outcome of the Senate races.


      (I apologize for shouting.)

  • PickyPecker
  • avidreader

    I still think Garland should remove himself from the process RIGHT NOW and allow Hillary to appoint a younger, much more liberal justice. Sucks for him but it’s politics.

    People are in part energized to vote for Hillary because of the SC appointment and it’s Garland they’re going to get in the end? Seems like a betrayal.

    • watchthewingnuts

      Garland knew what he was going into from the onset, and that he would likely never get confirmed. He is a textbook example of “taking one for the team” – I’m quite sure he will get rewarded for it at some point.

      • avidreader

        You know, I wouldn’t even mind if she replaced any of the other liberal justices who’ll retire during her term. Just not Scalia’s seat. This one needs to fucking hurt.

        • avidreader

          *replaced them with Garland, I meant

    • Chucktech

      I’ve said this many times now: If the Republicans in the Senate haven’t moved on Garland by November 6, Obama should pull his name on November 7.

      • IamM

        pull it now. let them sweat.

  • itsjoe618

    I suspect the GOP, post Trump loss, will still fall victim to it’s own hyper obstruction and the lame duck will pass without a confirmation. I’m dubious, even if they did hold hearings and an up or down vote, that there will be 14 GOP Senators who would go along with a Garland vote. I think, ultimately, it’ll hinge on whether they lose the Senate or not. I’d frankly rather wait to see who HRC might nominate, since we all know it doesn’t matter who that judge is, the GOP will throw up an obstructionist wall.

    • I agree with you. The GOP is so far beyond merely ‘dysfunctional,’ I don’t think they can do anything but ‘nothing.’

      • itsjoe618

        You have to wonder how their voters accept getting literally nothing done and still feel comfortable giving any of these jokers a paycheck.

        • The_Wretched

          They say that doing nothing is better than whatever ‘evil’ (read black / minority) Obama has in mind.

          • itsjoe618

            You’re right, of course. My comment was mostly rhetorical, but it still boggles the mind these scared sheep demand so little of their elected representatives. I guess when facts and reality don’t matter, a properly functioning government is not hight on the priority list.

          • IamM

            What’s worse is the Republicans have the nerve to suggest that it’s Obama or the Democrats fault that things aren’t better than they are. Huh, how are they supposed to fix our problems when you won’t let anyone get anything done?”

        • Snarkaholic

          Because their voters are soooo easily distracted by handwringing/doomsday pronouncements about those icky gheys.

          • Adam King

            Haven’t they moved on to knee-rattling terror of the horrible Mexicans?

        • John30013

          They don’t seem to mind with Li’l Marco….

      • bkmn

        It has been so long since the GOP actually did anything other than take orders from the Chamber of Commerce and ALEC and the Koch brothers that they don’t know any other way of operating. As long as Fox and the rest of the right wing media sets the agenda the GOP will continue to falter.

    • In my wildest dreams there wouldn’t be 14 GOP Senators LEFT after November 8th!

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Translation: Holy Fucking Shit! We are toast and this is the only nominee that is not to the left of Marx that we will be seeing for a very long time.


      GOP Senators have looked up the recipe for turtle soup. First add hot water (check)

  • PickyPecker
  • bkmn

    The GOP is in shit shape if Flake is their voice of reason.

  • DuaneBidoux

    That’s ironic, I was thinking this is about the time Obama should withdraw his nomination.

    • itsjoe618

      He really should formally announce a withdrawal of the Garland nomination at some point after election day, especially if the Republicans lose the Senate. I think it will only be a matter of time before the Democrat’s scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court justices entirely at the beginning of the new term with rule changes. That’ll almost guarantee the GOP cannot engage in their nihilistic obstruction and render their resistance moot. That’s a big haul considering how feeble the Democrats have been in letting this obstruction go virtually unchecked for years, but I’m cautiously optimistic.

    • Chucktech

      Election eve, my dear, election eve.

  • avidreader

    Also, everyone who has ever been screwed by Scalia and his decisions deserves the poetic justice of his seat being filled by another RBG.

    • The_Wretched

      Clinton is extremely unlikely to try that. She’s a moderate and always has been. OTOH, were she to do so, I’d start being extremely laudatory of her.

      • Hank

        Hillary may be a moderate, politically, however, when it comes to the issues, that generally come before SCOTUS, i.e. Women’s and GLBT Rights, Voting Rights, Citizens United, Federal vs State’s Rights, etc., she is much more Liberal in how she sees things!

        • The_Wretched

          As time goes one, I’m drifting to being a single issue voter on fiscal policy. It’s a frustrating topic as the explanations are difficult (though Robert Reich does a good job). The influence of Elizabeth Warren is huge and I hope Hillary spends a lot of time carrying out her ideas.

          • avidreader

            She can be as moderate in her presidency as she likes, as long as her SC nominee is a liberal. I can’t see her betraying Warren and Bernie supporters like that, especially with 2018 and 2020 looming large.

  • DoctorDJ

    In other words, “Push Garland through before Hillary nominates someone more liberal.”

  • marshlc

    OK, this is politics as politics works, and I’m not really all that bothered by it. The whole point is playing the angles, and deal making, and doing as much good for your side as you can while doing as little as possible for the other side.

    But you’re supposed to pretend, in public, that the choices you make are made because you think they are best for the country, and not just for your party. Out loud, where people can hear you, you say “After due consideration, we have determined that Garland is a good choice for the Supreme Court” and only in private you whisper that he’s the best you’re likely to get so grab him and run.

  • TexasBoy
    • Princess Lardass

      Bullshit. Unbelievable Bullshit.

      My dad let me watch Airplane when I was a kid, and I was crying from laughing so hard.

      • jimbo65

        “No thanks, I take my coffee black…Like my men. ” ;P

      • Falconlights

        Yeah, I laugh ever time I see it.

  • Blake J Butler

    Thats nice, but this is almost a year of not appointing a replacement, mocking the authority of the president to appoint a replacement to fill Scalia’s seat, and refusing to vote on Garland because it is election year and somehow Obama isn’t the president right now in your little ignorant heads.

    Your going to get fucked this year in November, your obstructionism over the past 8 years is a slap in the face of the American people, trying to demonize Obama as being solely responsible for this countries problems when in fact it has been you holding up progress, playing with peoples rights in the courts, just so you can pander to your base for votes and get your donors energized for your re-election or run for higher office.

    Dry-dock fucked is what you guys deserve and exactly what your going to get this November, too good to even receive lube.

  • WTR

    America would be a better place if John McCain’s name was on a black wall in Washington.

    • Mark

      a grey wall in the last stall of a truck stop would be ok, too.

  • Merv99

    But, I thought it was a matter of principle that the next president should decide who is nominated to the Supreme Court. Is he trying to tell us now that it wasn’t based on principle at all? I’m so confused.

    • republicans?? with principles?? surely you jest!

    • TexasBoy

      Of course it was based on principle, as long as they thought Trump had any chance at all. But now….

    • CraigNJ

      On November 9th Obama should withdraw his nomination of Garland. That would make sure the Hillary gets to make the nomination. McCain has totally lost it. Republicans won’t control the Senate and they’ll be wishing they had Garland again.

      • John30013

        I don’t think Obama should pull Garland’s nomination; that’s not fair to Garland, and Obama has maintained all along that his nomination of Garland was serious, not just a “throw-away”.

        I would prefer that (a) Garland step aside voluntarily, or failing that, (b) a Democratic Senator put a “hold” on Garland’s nomination, to uphold the ideal set forth by the Republicans that the people, via their choice for President, should get to fill the vacancy.

  • ShawnSwagger

    The Republicans who think they’ll survive (probably true in Flake’s case) are already starting to plan the post-Trump GOP. It wouldn’t surprise me too much if Jeff Flake or John Kasich end up being the 2020 Republican nominee.

  • Kelly Lape

    How would admitting to the American public that the only reason the Senate has failed to do their job was a political calculus help in November?

    Voting on Garland now completely negates their public justification that this was about respecting the people. The same people about to vote in Hillary Clinton… Let the Senate vote on Obama’s nomination and establish an unimpeachable precedent that Presidents Nominate Judicial appointments during their entire term.

    • lymis

      And then pass a law requiring prompt consideration of the appointments that the Constitution obligates the Senate to participate in. It’s a clear abrogation of their Constitutional duty to sit on a SCOTUS appointment for a year, much less all the other appointments they refuse to consider.

      90 days max before an up or down vote seems about right. They don’t have to approve, but they are Constitutionally obligated to consider. Put some teeth in it.

      Of course, while I’m wishing for the entirely unobtainable, I’d like to see a requirement that every sitting member of Congress actually attends when Congress is in session, or has a designated proxy with voting power. This idea that we have “Congress in session” with three people wandering aimlessly around while someone talks to thin air is ridiculous.

  • Mark

    Ya fuckin chickenshit. So it was never about the next president – it was all about the next REPUBLICAN president. And now that Donnie has his ass in both hands – you think you will come out ahead with Merrick than taking a chance on the REAL NEXT PRESIDENT’s chosings. You and your ilk have DENIED the citizens of this country the full representation that we deserve on the Supreme Court. You are a fucking dick drip – and I sincerely hope this next election will see you unemployed for your chicanery. You are properly named as you are a fucking flake.

    • Randy503

      But they are party of God and morality!

    • Kruhn

      Flake is not up this election.

      • Mark

        Churl! (that’s what Juliet said when she found there was no poison left in the bottle cuz ol’ Romeo sucked it all down….)

  • I got a good 20-second bellylaugh out of this one.
    It would serve you Senatorial douchecanoes right if Obama withdrew the nomination, allowed Clinton to select a very liberal appointee, and let the newly-controlled Democratic Senate to vote for them.

    • William

      Who could be the ultra-liberal nominee?

      • kareemachan

        Obama! Or Michelle!

      • lymis

        Sandra Bernhard.

  • kelven

    i don’t think they will. They just can’t let that “boy” put someone on the SC. They would see the country burn if they could be king of the ashes.

  • Dale Snyder

    “should take up Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination if it looks like the presidential contest is a lost cause for the GOP.”

    Hey, Senator, how about taking it up because it is required by the Constitution.

    • Chucktech

      Republicans: Yeah, fuck that.

      • Dale Snyder

        Yes, they “love” the Constitution SO much.

        • lymis

          Only when it’s printed on soft, thin paper.

  • Silver Badger

    They forget, President Obama can make an emergency appointment. Such as in a contested election.

    • Rob NYNY

      The President can make a recess appointment when the Senate is out of session, but unless the Democrats take control, the Republicans can make sure the Senate is never out of session, as they have been doing pretty much since Scalia died.

      • Silver Badger

        That explains why they are so cranky. They need recess!

  • ceeenbee

    Obama should withdraw the nomination and say that he thinks the next president should choose the next Justice. Heads would explode.

    • ShawnSwagger

      I wanna see the turtle’s head explode.

      • kareemachan

        In slow motion.

      • ceeenbee

        That would be sweet.

    • IamM

      No. He should withdraw the nomination just to make the point that it’s his to make or withdraw while he’s President and he doesn’t have to put up with the rethugs’ stupid games. Then after the election’s been certified he can nominate Garland or whoever he wants put forward and give the senate like 2 weeks to get started on hearings.

      • ceeenbee


        I really don’t think he should. He has too much class. But, it’s nice to fantasize about it.

        • IamM

          Right. Don’t sink to their level. But don’t normalize or incentivize the Rethugs’ obstruction. Rattle the checks and balances at a POTUS’s disposal in their faces, remind them the other side could play games too. He could have replaced the moderate Garland with their worst nightmare any time he wanted, he should make that point. And Obama should let them worry for a while whether they’ll still have the opportunity to settle for Garland.

  • sfmike64

    I’m sorry, how do I put this kindly?


    If I was being unkind, I would say “FUCK YOU LADY.” But I’m not, so I won’t.

  • dcurlee

    Do they see the resistance they gave Obama is what has put these events into motion and McCain wants to continue on the same path. Fuck him

  • The Professor

    Because she’s going to tromp Trump and get the Senate too? Let’ just wait a few more weeks… I mean, we waited this long.

  • Treant

    Ya think?

    Of course, since it’s likely to be a Dem-controlled Senate in three months, with Hillary as the President, maybe we should wait. She can nominate far-left, thirty-something Justices and use the bully pulpit to get you to vote.

    • Randy503

      I’m available. Not 30 something, but I’m quite liberal.

      • Xuuths

        Turns out you don’t even have to be an attorney or judge to be nominated or become a SCOTUS justice.

  • teeveedub

    How savvy of Sen. Flake to try to create the illusion of bipartisanship, while his fellow AZ senator attempts to leverage GOP hatred and rancor to save his own pathetic ass. Get your stories straight, boys.

    • Hank

      Flake is currently on MSNBC, trying to back track everything Hair Drumpf is saying about not accepting the election results, and every thing else he can do!

  • avidreader

    As per 538’s Election Forecast, there’s a 16% chance we’ll be discussing the possibility of Justice Thiel on November 9th. Can you even wrap your head around that one?! Or Justice Moore. Oh, I better stop right now.

  • Xuuths

    If the Dems get 51 in the Senate, come the new session they can change the rules to prevent filibustering of Supreme Court appointments, so that they always get a hearing and an up/down vote. I really don’t see the down side of this, even if a President and Senate of a different party comes into power. I’m personally against these kind of stalling tactics by any party.

    • lymis

      Given that it’s an actual Constitutional requirement for the Senate to be involved, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing.

  • SoCalGal20

    Michelle Obama will be speaking in Phoenix soon. Note: The ABC feed is playing some of her other speeches while they wait for Michelle to start her speech.

    • coram nobis

      That will be worth hearing. Especially today.

      • Hank

        Just heard Barack talking in Miami on MSNBC and going after Hair Drumpf and little Marco!!!

    • ShawnSwagger

      Love the roaring cheers that “our friend Hillary” got.

    • ShawnSwagger

      She is an amazingly good speaker.

    • ShawnSwagger

      And the crowd goes wild. She knocks it out of the ballpark again.

    • bzrd

      Thanks, CalGal for putting this on JMG !

  • coram nobis

    Bart: Well, can’t you see that’s the last act of a desperate man?
    Howard: We don’t care if it’s the first act of Henry the Fifth. We’re leavin’.
    — “Blazing Saddles”

  • AtticusP

    Merrick Garland should decline the nomination, and tell all of the Senate Republicans to go fuck themselves.

    In elegant legal language, of course…

    • coram nobis

      “Go sit on a writ.”

      • bkmn

        And remind them that their inaction caused several rulings to be non-binding nationwide due to the vacancy.

      • EweTaw

        is a writ like a tuffet?

      • AtticusP

        Because, as everyone knows,

        “Everything’s better when it sits on writs”…

      • Cattleya1

        Good one! Andy Griffith fan?

  • For what it’s worth, I think everybody here knows the original “no confirmation” obstruction by McConnell and the Republican Senate majority was solely because they thought they could give the Scalia replacement nomination to a Republican President.

    I know you all know their attempt to assert, “The American people should have a voice in choosing the next nominee” was never anything but specious and transparently mendacious bullshit.

    In quick succession here, both times from an Arizona Senator, first McCain, then Flake, we have had our conclusions confirmed.

    First, McCain said the GOP would unite behind denying Clinton any SCOTUS nominations. Not just this one, but ANY. For four years, minimum, including any additional vacancies.

    Now this, with Flake saying, essentially, ‘Quick, let’s confirm the guy our own people said was well-qualified before we decided to obstruct the whole thing.’

    That said, I agree with some of the rest of you here, that the Senate will not confirm, for one main reason: They still believe it’s politically tenable to deny SCOTUS nominations to any Democratic party President, whether it’s Obama now or Clinton in January.

    This is why they must have their Senate majority stripped from them and the filibuster abolished across the board. For they have shown themselves to be incapable of governing and incapable of putting the country ahead of their own partisan ambition and insatiable demands for complete power.

    Trump’s statements today that he’d only respect election results if he won is merely this same philosophy writ large. The GOP’s official position is THEY will accept the legitimacy of the presidential winner if and only if he’s a Republican.

    • EweTaw

      Sing it sister!

    • kareemachan

      You said this much better than I did above.

    • Balderdashing

      They’re relying on Ginsberg to die, giving conservatives ascendancy while they continue to obstruct filling the bench with moderates/liberals (who reflect the will of the people).

  • religion is insane

    Conservative should be satisfied that Scout has been under conservative judges’ control for forty years. Besides gay right and Obamacare, the ruling has been in favor of GOP.

    • The_Wretched

      They are never satisfied. They are greedy and gluttonous.

  • Blake Mason
  • VodkaAndPolitics

    My Hubby and I sat next to him and his wife on an airplane once. We spent almost the whole flight yucking it up, laughed until our sides were sore. I didn’t immediately know who he was, although I knew he was a senator. I never in a million years would have assumed he was a republican.

    • ShawnSwagger

      Yeah, I listened to the NPR show “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” years ago when Flake was a guest, and I have to admit he sounded like a good sport, reasonably intelligent and not-crazy for a Republican. He was actually pretty likeable on that show.

      • kareemachan

        I heard that show as well. Thought he wasn’t half-bad.

        Still don’t like his son’s actions with those dogs, tho.

        • ShawnSwagger

          What is it with Republicans’ kids and torturing dogs? Maybe they can put him in a therapy group with Huckabee’s son.

    • Chucktech

      My hubby was a lobbyist for many years. He says that in order for any politician to be elected, you have to have a certain amount of charm and charisma that would appeal to anyone.

      He says you can name any politician whom you would otherwise despise, like, for instance, Louie Gohmert, or Michele Bachmann, or Frothy Mix, or Mike Pence, Moron Bush, ANY of them, sit down and have a beer with them, they could charm the birds right out of the tree. They HAVE to be able to do that to be a politician.

      • EweTaw

        Your Hubby has never met Orrin Hatch.

        • Chucktech

          Mormon politicians are most likely the exception that proves the rule.

          • EweTaw

            It’s worth reminding people that Senator Mike Lee (r) Utah is a great grandson of John D. Lee, the main character charged, found guilty and executed for the Meadow Mountain Massacre.

          • William

            What about Jesse Helms? He had a face for print.

        • Corsair Tact

          “Those dry toast people.” My Big Fat Greek Wedding

        • Tiger Quinn

          Yeah, the only birds that came for that one were falling down dead.

    • Corsair Tact

      We’re very distantly related, Senator Flake and I, and he does remind me a little of that part of my family that is a little scolding and a little funny, all at the same time. Flake, btw, is a German name.

  • Rex

    Fuck you and the rest of the republicans, you wanted the next president to decide so let HER decide.


      Actually I believe you said we are waiting till after the election so we can honor the will of the people. So fucking honor the will of the people.

      • kareemachan

        Actually the process nothing to with not honoring shit. It’s the Prez’s job to suggest a judge and it’s Congress’ job to hold the damned hearings in a timely manner. This seems to be the new response of repubs for anything they don’t want to do. Just set some goal to slow down the process. Hem and haw about “people’s will” when, in fact, the majority of Americans WANT a full Supreme Court. Petulantly refuse to say that you will honor the election if you don’t win. I have to say that they have brought obstructionism to a whole new level. Kudos, asshats.

  • abqdan

    Schumer – you need to pledge to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court Nominees when the Senate comes into session and Clinton is President. Then she can nominate whomever she believes is appropriate.

    Obama – please withdraw your nominee, so that Clinton has a freer hand in January to nominate left-leaning judges. (Progressives would be a stretch from Clinton, but we could at least hope they won’t be as conservative as Garland).

  • moebym

    Republicans just love to act like they’re in charge of making decisions even when they’ve lost or are going to lose, don’t they?

    • EweTaw

      Republicans have always carried themselves as superior and the rightful masters in charge. It’s a rare member of the GOP who ever concedes he could ever possibly wrong, especially when they are very wrong.

  • Dagoril

    Well, that didn’t take long.

    Thanks, #UnshackledDonaldTrump !

  • Lazycrockett

    Totally OT The cups the panel are drinking out of on MTP Daily are purple. #SpiritDay

    • BearEyes

      Today Show went purple this morning too

  • JustSayin’

    Obama needs to pull the request for Garland just to fuck with the republicans. Of course he should do it Nov 8th at 5 p.m.

    • Chucktech

      I’d say election eve, but that works, too.

    • IamM

      Now’s a good time. They wanted to wait until after the election, make them do that.

  • Queequeg

    Political opportunist. Playing games with our justice system is just wrong. Now that he knows they are going to lose, he’s willing to do his job? McCain is just an asshole, plain and simple.

  • Oikos
    • Chucktech

      “Ouch!! Hey, guys, this isn’t fun anymore…”

    • Corsair Tact

      Yow! How Berlin!

  • M Jackson

    So McCain is saying that the Supreme Court is going to remain incomplete for the next 8 years?

    • Lazycrockett

      I honestly don’t see how the GOP can survive 16 years of Obstructionism.

  • Michael White

    wish Mr. Obama would withdraw Mr. Garland and propose a more liberal and younger person. That would fix those ……

  • Lazycrockett
    • I actually liked even better the “No puppet. No puppet. You’re the puppet! You’re the puppet!” retort about Putin.

      Anybody see someone over the age of about 6 or 7 years old talk like that?

      BTW, I take back an earlier criticism I had about Melania. She told the truth when she said that Barron and her husband were both immature little boys, in terms of their behavior.

      • Lazycrockett

        Well one is a 10 year boy and the other is 69 year old sexual predator, so I still take issue.

      • DH Esq

        What a fucking imbecile.

    • EweTaw

      We sat at the back of the auditorium on the far right side last night. There were guys in black suits with walkie talkies monitoring the audience and when anyone so much as laughed they rushed over and told you to shut up. A few people were escorted out of the debate, maybe one or two. I didn’t see all of them. But at one point a couple of rows in front of us broke out in laughter at something Trump claimed and the guys in black were all over them making sure they shut up. But when a group of Trumpanzees clapped and shouted out for Trump those same “monitors” didn’t do a damn thing. It was rigged I tells ya. Rigged!

      • Luckily whoever did the sound board work in there was good at it. Those of us watching via TV could only barely hear the audience even when there was clapping or laughing, except at the beginning and end when we were supposed to.

      • Corsair Tact

        I’m actually rather disturbed by your story here…

        • EweTaw

          What was really disturbing was going through so many layers of security and frowning glares just to get to our seats two hours early. A good number of people were not allowed into the event because they weren’t “dressed appropriately” and there was no place to check a back pack despite odd looking press (about 1,000 of them) wandering around with huge laptop luggage on wheels.

          • Corsair Tact

            I admire your fortitude! Are you a recovering LDS? Or just a plain old beehiver?

      • Jerry

        It was called the “Fox News” debate. Wallace gave Trump multiple chances to walk back the crazy, but he just doubled down.

    • Natty Enquirer

      I reflexively laughed out loud at Trump’s line, which is unusual because I was watching by myself and I’m not a big laugher. But it was just such a ridiculous, bald-faced lie. I see the audience had the same reaction. Couldn’t help themselves.

  • This is how narcissists talk. By making patently ridiculous claims about themselves, constantly and reflexively:

    • Treant

      I am the most pure and virginal person you’ve ever met.

      • Acronym Jim

        No, that would be Todd20036.

    • safari

      It’s wearing him out

    • avidreader

      Am narcissist; can confirm.

    • DH Esq

      He is clearly tired of the campaign process. Good.

  • Lazycrockett

    You know FGOTUS doesn’t have the same elegance that FLOTUS has.

    • Corsair Tact

      First Lad? First Laddie? First Libido? First Lustful? First Longitudinal?

      • Merv99

        Lecher? Libertine? Lothario?

        • Tiger Quinn

          It’s First Gentleman, calm down everybody. If we have to use protocol, then protocol it is.

          • Corsair Tact

            Hey! We’re having some Madame President fun here!

          • William


    • avidreader

      Or fag for short. I really hope they come up with something better. Have a contest with a prize for the best suggestion, ANYTHING.

      • Martin

        First Spouse? (FSOTUS)

        It could apply to either male or female.

    • Natty Enquirer

      How about “Pearl Dropper”?

  • “John McCain has vowed that the Senate will block ANY nominee put forward by Hillary.”

    Hopefully on November 8th the good people of Arizona will retire McCain to a nice room at Shady Acres where he can live out his days screaming, “GET OFF MY LAWN!”

  • Tiger Quinn

    Yeah, we kind of thought this was coming – that when Hillary won the GOP would suddenly be all “Oh sure, we LOVE Garland!” At which point I hope Obama withdraws his name.

  • LovesIrony

    fuck you obstructionists. Your party thought they could let the person that the people elect president pick the nominee. you can’t have it both ways you lying obstructing pieces of shit.

  • Stuart Wyman-Cahall

    Too late. Bring on a progressive. Whose next?

  • SoCalGal20

    FLOTUS just finished her speech in Phoenix. I love that woman! Also, I’m ready to hop in the car and go over to help. She’s such a great public speaker and motivator.

  • 1Truth1

    No no no no no. Nope. The GOP insisted that the next president should be allowed to choose a new nominee for SCOTUS. If they are truly people of their word then they will stand by what they said. But I’m sure they will rant and whine about it…. no matter who it is. And they are already floating the idea of obstructing the nominee as long as it takes regardless of who it is. Four years of obstruction are on the way.

    • Joe in PA

      If they are truly people of their word then they will stand by what they said….


      I wish this would become a campaign issue for Democratic senate wannabes. (Are you listening McGinty?) Combine John McCain current comment with Mitch “let the next president decide” McConnell’s comment.

  • AdamTh

    Nope. No lame duck confirmation. The GOP should stick to their “principles” and allow the “next president to fill the vacancy”. Their game.

  • Will Parkinson

    It’s time? Shit, it’s well passed time. You people screwed the pooch on this one, and I hope to hell it comes back to bite you in your collective asses.

  • justmeeeee

    I always says that Jeff might make himself fuckable again with the right attitude adjustment.

  • ben-andy

    What Flake should be REALLY worried about is the Dems changing the Senate Standing RULES in January. The first order of business in the Senate is to approve the RULES they will operate under, always.

    That pesky little rule that you need 60 to end debate is NOT in the Constitution. The rules have to be approved by a super majority, but there is a way around it. The Dems can easily change them to a simple majority for ALL Senate business. It is actually the ONLY way they’ll get anything significant done in the next two years.

    The rule that Cloture [cutting off debate] requires 60 votes only dates to 1917 [yes, it will be 100 years old if they remove it in January]. Originally, it was a 2/3 majority of those present and voting, so a variable number. Far more recently, in 1974, the Dems, having 62 certain votes, reduced that to 3/5ths but fixed at 60 unless there is a vacant Senate seat. So 98 sworn Senators would only need 59 votes.

    In what is called the “Nuclear Option”, the Senate can change the rules by a simple majority vote [sworn & seated, so usually 51, or a 50/50 tie and the VP = President of the Senate breaks the tie] really at any time. That is what happen in BOTH of the above changes to the Senate rules. It is also what happened in 2013 when Harry Reid removed ALL Federal appointment filibusters [both Executive and Judicial branch] with the single exception of the Supremes. So, you might call that change a “limited, tactical nuke”. But nada to stop them invoking it again to get a Hillz Supreme confirmed. And really any time the want to.

    Oh, and the delicious irony? In 1957 [the year of my boith, coinky-dinkily], then VP Tricky Dick Nixon wrote an opinion stating that the Constitution DID allow the Presiding Officer this power to change the rules. It was a rather self-serving opinion, as, naturally, he was then the Presiding Officer of the Senate. Say what you want about the man, but he had a keen sense of how he could make himself impotent.

    • Pretty sure the Constitution says nothing about Senate rules either, which means a simple majority can change the rules at any time, not just at the start of the session. I expect the Democrats will try to first preserve the filibuster, then if the Republicans actually try to use it, they’ll abolish it and blame that development on the Republicans.

      • fuow

        Nah, gotta do it right off the start, for that there’s tradition.
        And, seriously, my party needs to accept there’s going to be NO cooperation from the rethugs, so don’t even give them a chance.

  • Gerry Fisher

    “Quick. Let’s try to stop looking like assholes given that we’re about to be clobbered in the presidential election and given that we need to try to salvage down-ticket races.”

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Obama should immediately rescind Merrick’s nomination.

    • OdieDenCO

      I think not. President Obama has earned at least one more. let Merrick stand and make the GOP eat crow!

      • NowAnAgnostic

        He is too old. Nominate young progressives. Guarantee a progressive majority for a long time.

        • fuow

          I’m rather opposed to ageism, if you don’t mind too terribly much.

          • NowAnAgnostic

            Well, I am against ageism also, but in this case we are talking about a lifetime appointment.

            Roberts was 50 when appointed, now 61.

            Alito was 56 when appointed, now 66.

            Garland will turn 64 on November 13.

            In 20 years three (3) judges will be reaching retirement or death at the same time. What if a repugnican is President at that time? Then we have 3 ultra conservative justices and we are FUCKED.

            A 50 year-old Liberal in the mold of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg would make much more sense.

          • fuow

            Uh-uh. That’s the same mentality as the HRC and their decision to throw our transgender brothers and sisters under the bus.

  • Phil

    But its not looking like the GOP will control the Senate after the election. This introduces a whole new dynamic into the process! As you assclowns said, “the new president should make the appointment,” hopefully to a new, Democrat-controlled Senate. FAIL!

    • Gianni

      One can only hope. What a prize that would be along with the President.

  • ColdCountry

    Gee, who would ever have seen that coming?

  • anne marie in philly

    WELL FUCK YEAH! WTF have you been waiting for, asswipes?

    • boatboy_srq

      They’ve been waiting for the Inevitable tRump pResidency foretold in all their Unskewed Polls. Now that reality is setting in they’re panicking.

  • Joe knows who I am.

    As an Arizonan I can say defiantly and with great disdain for your lack of leadership, Fuck you Flake!

  • Johnny Wyeknot

    Merrick should take the high road and withdraw now.

    • Reality.Bites

      He doesn’t need to. Every step of the way in this electoral debacle, when the Republicans have had a chance to show a backbone and a sense of reality, they fail to do so.

      Merrick knew what this was about from the start. We all did. If by some fluke the Republicans start hearings, he can withdraw at that time, because while he fully agreed President Obama had the right to make the appointment, once the election has taken place the decision belongs to the new President and Senate.

      Unless of course the Democrats don’t get a good Senate majority, in which case it might be worthwhile taking what they can get.

      • fuow

        We likely won’t get the Senate or House, given the lousy work on the House my party did – too few viable candidates.
        And, the old problem, way too few left of center people willing to get off their asses and actually vote.

  • HKDaniel

    If they’re waiting for the lame duck session it will be too late. Hillary will win and the Senate will be controlled by the Dems. Obama would likely short circuit any lame duck confirmation by having Garland withdraw thereby insuring a YOUNG LIBERAL justice.
    That is my fervent hope.
    Their only hope is to confirm before the election and they won’t/can’t. They’re screwed and it’s all their fault.

  • Nic Peterson

    Two things here:

    1) woundn’t it be lovely if Garland politely declined after the Senate finally confirms him and
    2) What the hell is up with all of these orange republicants? Are they still using up their lifetime supply of Bain de Soleil?

  • paganguy

    Gee… ya’ think?

  • bob

    LOL, Your fucked now!

  • rextrek1

    …..Wait…..What’s that I hear? ….could it be ……..TABLES TURNING?

  • goofy_joe

    Re: that last comment, John McCain should be ashamed of himself, and is no longer allowed to ride his POW status as he is clearly not interested in working for the American people any longer. I think these guys stay in Washington for so long they forget that they are not kings or royalty.

  • Forrest Halford

    This election is so important. Vote!

  • Bruno

    Oh HELL nah.

  • Stubenville

    Amazing how flexible your beliefs are.

    • customartist

      “Morally Flexible” like on Breaking Bad

  • customartist

    McCain must go. He will say anything to keep his seat. But what has he really done?

    Right after the Bush Tax Cuts passed, McCain came on TV and said boldly “This is BAD legislation!”,…but then when he later ran for President he flipped and supported the Bush Cuts. He’s a whore – an OLD whore.

    • joe ho

      and he vigorously opposed repeal of dadt.

    • abel

      Yeah, it’s past time for McCain to retire in shame.

  • penpal

    They wanted to play petty politics, so Democrats should play petty politics. Democrats should block the nomination so that Hillary can appoint a far-left progressive. We have long needed a Clarence Thomas of our own.

    • fuow

      Unfortunately, WE are the ones responsible for Clarence Thomas. WE didn’t have the spine to back up Anita Hill. That rethugs are evil trash is nothing new. That WE, DEMOCRATS, stuck the shiv in her, turned around and drove the bus back over her after we threw her under it and then granted our assent to this truly bad jurist….
      No excuses, he’s OUR fault.

      But, yes, I’d love to see President Clinton (H>) appoint several Justices like RGB.

  • fuow

    Yeah, but, they’re all the same and there’s no reason to vote. She’ll win anyway, not that it matters.
    Keep telling yourself that, you A-Listers.
    Seriously, anybody taken a look at the stats. recently? Young women and gay men are actually not paying attention to this potential disaster. What the fuck is wrong with people?

  • mysticl

    Obama should withdraw Garland’s (my apologies to Judge Garland but my hope is he would understand) name to stop those yahoo’s playing more games … let Hillary appoint her choice instead and let the conservatives weep for lost opportunities … would serve them a lesson!

  • Halloween_Jack
  • Gary

    Oh, they will – after Trump nominates a Conservative.