Let's start with New Jersey's Cory Booker, who joined Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom on CBS. Here are some highlights.
He's not sure how things will play out, with Mitch McConnell controlling things, but that "we've seen moments like this before," where some of his colleagues listened to the American people and changed their vote and did the right thing.
As to what the Dems might do to stop things, what leverage they have, Brennan mentioned the upcoming spending bill, but Booker kept to the high road, saying one thing
is to appeal - a moral appeal to people who clearly stated what they would do under these circumstances. For them to go against their word is pretty significant in the public space in terms of their own honor and legitimacy.
And what's different, in his eyes, now vs. back in 2016? Back then, we were 269 days from the election, not already in the process of the election, and for his Republican colleagues to violate their own words, "does a tremendous amount of damage to the institution of the Senate as well as to the legitimacy of the court."
This is one of those moments where I wish we would step back and take a beat and understand what we're doing and the consequences and how they could radiate throughout time.
On whether Biden should release a list of potential nominees, Booker noted that Trump did it as an appeal to the far-right base, and that it broke with tradition. Biden doesn't have to follow suit, first of all, and if he chooses to release a list, that's "secondary to the urgency of this election" and to those who understand the issues, from health care to climate change to voting rights - and "what's important right now is the urgency of this election to a lot of the fundamental issues that affect our daily lives."
And finally, on calls to expand the court, Booker was clear.
Unless we win the Senate back, unless we win the White House, all these questions are just hypothetical and moot. We need to focus on what is at hand. We have already begun voting in a number of United States. Early ballots are going out across this country. We need to win this election. Everything is on the line and that should be, in my opinion, the focus right now.
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar was also making the rounds, with a couple of appearances including one with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Here are highlights of that conversation.
She's not interested in talking about the Senate rules and what the Dems might be able to do to stop a nomination from going forward, "for a very important reason."
I'm not going to concede that when you already have several of my colleagues saying that the way this happened, so close to the election, that the next president should be able to make the decision. The people pick the president, and the president picks the justice. That is how this works. Look at what Abraham Lincoln did the last time someone died this close to the election. He waited. He waited until after the election.
To me, the fact that you've got people voting right now, including in my state, everything is on the line here. Health care is on the line. There's literally going to be an argument on the Affordable Care Act, whether or not people will continue to have health care and not get kicked off for preexisting conditions, on November 10th. So I think my Republican colleagues are the ones. They have to decide, based on what they said before. They set this new precedent in the last -- in 2016, and they've got to follow their own words.
Chuck asked her about specifics, going further than Brennan did with Booker. He asked if 'nothing is off the table' meant packing the court, or getting rid of the filibuster, or granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. She again said she wasn't conceding this, referencing RBG, a woman who never gave up, and saying
Well, I'm not going to give up that some of my colleagues here, when we already have three of them, three of them, having said that they believe that the next president, whoever wins the election. They're not saying who that's going to be. Whoever wins the election should be able to pick the justice. Then we can talk about the reforms. Because what matters right now is what mattered three days ago before she died. And that is that people have to vote. And they vote. And they have to vote, as Michelle Obama said, like their life depends on it.
Also on MTP? Wyoming's John Barrasso, who four years ago said "I want to give the American people a voice in this." This time around, he doesn't want to do that because, he says without evidence,
Well, first, let's be very clear. If the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court. What we're proposing is completely consistent, completely consistent with the precedent. What happened in 2016, and let's go back, we were following the Joe Biden rule.
The "Biden Rule" is something the Democratic nominee said back in 1992, when addressing a hypothetical vacancy on the court. It is not a rule, and it did not have any practical application when he said it.
Todd says he had scoured all of the notes from 2016 looking for any reference to this new explanation they're using now, and he quoted Barrasso extensively.
When an election is just months away in 2016," you said that, "people should be allowed to consider possible Supreme Court nominees as one factor in deciding who they'll support for president. This shouldn't even really be controversial." Then you said, "This is not about the person. It's about the principle involved, and I want to give the American people a voice in this." Republicans have said there should not be a bitter political fight. "We have called on the president to spare the country this fight. The best way to avoid the fight is to agree to let the people decide." Senator, these are your words. Not once did you say, "Oh, it depends on what party the Senate holds versus the party of the president." This just sounds like a power grab, pure and simple.
Well, Barrasso said, "it is the Biden rule" and precedent and Schumer and Harry Reid and
I'll tell you what's going to happen here I'll tell you what's going to happen. The Senate is going to be back in session and the president's going to make a nomination I believe this week.
And whether viewers should "Just not believe anything you're saying today because whatever you're saying today will change depending on the politics of the moment?"
Well, I can tell you what's going to happen, Chuck. For viewers who are watching, the president is going to make a nomination. I believe it's going to be this week. And Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we will hold hearings. And there will be a vote on the floor of the United States Senate this year. The president has a list of 20 potential nominees. He's mentioned several of them last night. And I think, I really do think that if the president really wanted to make a powerful positive statement by coming forth with a woman nominee, there are many qualified women on his list, somebody who could then be a role model for future attorneys, for young women and young men looking into the law --I think that would be the right move for this president, soon.
He did say that
Every Senate candidate and every senator speaks for himself or herself. As chairman of the conference, I have great respect for that. But each one is going to be called upon to make a decision in their role as advise and consent. The president is going to nominate, and we're going to vote this year, Chuck.
And finally, we've got Ted Cruz talking with George in the This Week classroom. George asked him whether it was fair for folks to conclude that Cruz has changed his tune on moving forward with the nomination because the president is a Republican not a Democrat. Cruz said he called on the president to make a nomination this week, and Trump's going to do that, and that it's the right thing to do to get this taken care of before the election. Here are highlights from that conversation (such as they are)
And he said in response to George talking about the apparent hypocrisy between 2016 and 2020,
It's not just simply your party, my party. The reason is it's -- it's a question of checks and balances. In order for a Supreme Court nomination to go forward, you have to have the president and the Senate -- in this instance, the American people voted. They elected Donald Trump. A big part of the reason they elected Donald Trump is because of the Scalia vacancy, and they wanted principled constitutionalists on the court. And the big part of the reason why we have a Republican majority, elected in 2014, re-elected in 2016, grown even larger in 2018, a major issue in each of those elections is the American people voted and said, we want constitutionalist judges. And so the president was elected to do this and the Senate was elected to confirm this nomination.
On whether he's "in step with most Republicans" in voting before the election, Cruz talked about what Jimmy Carter did after losing to Ronald Reagan, when he nominated Steven Breyer to the Appeals Court, and eventually Breyer became Bill Clinton's second Supreme, so there's that.
And everyone knows that if the president were Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were the majority leader, the odds are 100 percent -- 100 percent -- there's no universe in which Nancy Pelosi would not have been the previous speaker saying, we are going to confirm this seat. And at the end of the day, how do you resolve those differences? Well, the American people do. And the American people did by electing a president and a Senate committed to justices who will defend free speech and religious liberty and the second amendment and our fundamental rights. Because all of those rights are one vote away.
Back to the question at hand, he doesn't know if they have the votes, but it's important because Joe Biden "has been explicit. He has said, if he doesn't win, he's going to challenge this election." George pointed out it's actually "president Trump who has been the one talking about rigged elections" and that Biden "has not explicitly said" he'd challenge it, and of course the candidates have legal teams. Cruz said that Hillary Clinton said Biden shouldn't concede, and apparently we're supposed to believe that she and he are one and the same, or something. And then
In fact, I just wrote a book that's coming out in a couple of weeks called "One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History." And one of the chapters there talks about Bush v. Gore. It talks about the epic battle where Al Gore challenged the election results, and for 36 days, the country was held in chaos. Well, if Joe Biden does that again this year and we have an 8-8 court, an equally divided court, 4-4, can't decide anything. That could make this presidential election drag on weeks and months and well into next year. That is an intolerable situation for the country. We need a full court on Election Day, given the very high likelihood that we're going to see litigation that goes to the court. We need a Supreme Court that can give a definitive answer for the country.
And then he pitched his book again, in response to a question about Roe v. Wade.
You know, I mentioned a minute ago the book I have, "One Vote Away," that's -- that's coming out in a couple of weeks. I have an entire chapter devoted to how you should make Supreme Court nominations. And I think what you should look for is a proven record. Where Republicans have gotten this wrong is where we've rolled the dice. On the Democratic side, Democrats bat almost 1,000. Almost every Democratic nominee votes exactly as the Democrats want. On the Republican side, we maybe bat 500. A full half of Republican nominees end up galloping to the left and undermining the Constitution.
Did I mention he's got a book coming out?
See you around the virtual campus. With a mask, of course, or I'll kick you out of my classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!