Mitch McConnell is at it again.
Asked during an appearance on Fox News Thursday night if he would allow the Supreme Court nomination if a vacancy opened and Republicans were in a Senate majority next year, McConnell had this to say:
"I'm not going to announce what might be our agenda on appointments before we become a majority. I hope we are in a position to make a decision."
McConnell did so on Thursday morning after an interview with Axios' Jonathan Swann, in which he declined to hold hearings for a potential Supreme Court nominee if he becomes Senate majority leader next year.
To be clear, what McConnell is saying is that he will not resolve to consider a nominee to fill the Supreme Court opening in the final two years of President Joe Biden's term. Joe McConnell is also a step ahead of his line on the High Court nomination earlier.
You may recall that McConnell, as Senate Majority Leader, Merrick Garland—President Barack Obama's nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia in court—also refused to give a confirmation hearing or a meeting in 2016.
McConnell said at the time, "The American people should have a voice in choosing their next Supreme Court judge." "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
That stance was notable given that Scalia died in mid-February 2016, meaning Obama had about 11 months left in his second term.
This was even more notable because Obama had explicitly chosen Garland because of his record as a moderate jurist, in the hope that he might attract votes from Republicans as well.
Announcing his selection of Garland, Obama nodded to the moderation. Obama said in March 2016 that "I have selected a nominee who is recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but as someone who brings decency, integrity, equity in their work." and brings a sense of excellence." "These qualities and his longstanding commitment to public service have earned him respect and admiration from leaders on both sides of the aisle."
McConnell justified his move, describing it as a "Biden rule." This was a reference to a 1992 Senate floor speech given by Biden in which he said "once the political season is on, and that is, the Supreme Court nomination must be put off until the election campaign is over." It's worth noting here that at the time Biden made his remarks, there were no vacancies on the Supreme Court.
Make no mistake: McConnell, refusing to say whether he will hold hearings for any potential Supreme Court candidate in 2023—which is not an election year—again, to the goalpost of how and when the Senate will confirm Requesting transfer. justice.
If McConnell refuses to take a nominee, if there is an inauguration in court, the message is simple: a president can only expect that his Supreme Court candidate receives a confirmation hearing and if his party is not in the Senate. If you control, vote. Which is a big break from the previous example.
If such a scenario happens, McConnell will certainly try to hang that new precedent on the ideology of the nominee.
“I would be interested in working with the president when he is ready to become a libertarian – but with respect to personnel, and other things that we are involved in, I am not going to indicate how we are going to approach it. Do it," McConnell told Axios.
But again, Garland's example in the instructable here. Garland had a long-standing reputation as a liberal. In fact, knowing why Obama chose him, Garland must be confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. And yet, McConnell not only held confirmation hearings for Garland but also refused to meet with her.
"I choose not to answer this question," McConnell told Axios on whether he would hear a Supreme Court nominee if Republicans hold a majority in the Senate in 2023.
That answer - or lack thereof - tells you everything you need to know.