If Clinton wants to score political points with skeptical Democrats, she might start with actually taking a position on the Garland nomination herself.
- “Hillary’s Supreme Court Two-Step: She chides Senate’s refusal to act on nominee, but won’t say if she’d appoint him herself…The question of whether Clinton would reappoint Garland is deceptively important…Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday, the morning after she won four states and essentially wrapped up the Democratic nomination.” (Politico, 3/16/16)
With her speech today in Wisconsin, Clinton will join Joe Biden’s effort to engage in revisionist history. While Clinton is going on the attack without making her own position known, Biden used a major address last week to walk back his own assertion that neither the President or the Senate should act on a Supreme Court nomination in the midst of a contentious presidential campaign:
- “Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday tried to clear his name and tout his record on Supreme Court nominations, calling Republican branding of his past remarks on the subject ‘ridiculous’…Earlier in the speech, Biden warned that if Bush were to name a nominee immediately, weeks before the summer political conventions, “‘the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.’” (AP, 3/24/16)
While Senator Grassley has taken a stand to allow voters to speak before overhauling the Supreme Court for a generation, Democrats like Hillary Clinton continue to demand confirmation of Obama’s liberal nominee before the American people are heard. Before Clinton’s Wisconsin remarks are lent any credibility, she should have to take a stand – does she actually support Garland’s nomination, or is she just using the opportunity to score political points?