Grinning Mitch McConnell Says “We’d Fill” a Supreme Court Vacancy Next Year

Democrats are fit to be tied.

Knowing there is no point to keeping up the charade, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told luncheon guests on Tuesday that he would not hesitate to fill a Supreme Court seat in 2020, even if that seemingly violates his own reasoning for putting Obama’s pick on ice in 2016.

Asked directly if he would confirm a Supreme Court nominee if a seat were to become available next year, McConnell took a nice long sip of iced tea before grinning. “Oh, we’d fill it.”

The liberals at Slate had a conniption: “McConnell Says He’d Confirm an Election-Year Trump Supreme Court Nominee Because He’s a Republican and Obama Wasn’t.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted him on Twitter: “Senator McConnell is a hypocrite.”

“We’ve known all along how hypocritical the @senatemajldr is,” said presidential candidate Julian Castro. “But his shamelessness at stealing a Supreme Court seat is appalling.”

Outrage was audible from sea to shining sea (although probably not much of it was from the middle of those two boundaries), but it really doesn’t matter, does it? Because whether or not Democrats and liberal media pundits are outraged over this obvious double-standard, McConnell and Trump are still going to do what they’re going to do.

McConnell’s election-year reasoning for denying Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016 never really passed the laugh test. It was a transparent (and risky) ploy to keep the Supreme Court from falling under liberal control. It just happened to work. It was, quite frankly, the most brilliant, despicable, genius thing that McConnell has ever done. Was it dirty politics? Absolutely. Did it work? Ask Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Now, critics can whine all day long about the “politicization” of the Supreme Court, but that damage was done long before McConnell threw his Hail Mary pass into the endzone. There’s not a conservative jurist (or observer) on the planet who thinks the Roe v. Wade decision was anything more than an ultra-partisan love letter to the feminist movement. There’s not a liberal jurist (or observer) who thinks the Heller decision was anything more than an equivalent love letter to the NRA. The Supreme Court was “politicized” already.

Would we have been outraged if the parties were reversed? If a Democratic Senate had refused to take up a Republican’s Supreme Court nominee? Gee, you think?

But that’s not what happened, and that’s just how it goes. Sometimes the fight is one worth making, even if you don’t fight fair. The gain was more than worth it.

About admin