Out of context
Friday, Mar 18, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the Democratic Party of Illinois…
Kirk Should Demand Supreme Court Nominee Gets Fair Hearing & Vote
Senator’s unwillingness to lobby colleagues for Illinois native an abdication of leadership, indication of preference for Trump to pick next Justice
This morning, Senator Kirk told WLS-AM 890 that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee will not be confirmed and the vacancy will be filled by the next President. In response, Democratic Party of Illinois Senior Communications Advisor Sean Savett released the following statement:
“Senator Kirk’s refusal to demand his Republican colleagues provide Illinois native Judge Merrick Garland with a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote is an affront to Illinois voters. If Senator Kirk were serious about fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities, he would publicly rebuke the strategy of the Republican Majority Leader he voted for, not predict the strategy’s success.
“Kirk’s refusal to advocate on behalf of an eminently qualified Illinoisan is all the more galling given the increasing likelihood that Donald Trump will be his party’s nominee and potentially be in position to fill this Supreme Court vacancy. Apparently Kirk is just fine with that, as he indicated last week.”
Link to interview: https://soundcloud.com/user-929004173/scotuskirk/s-mJbdc#t=1:59
Key Excerpt:
Howell: Do you ever think we will have any sort of hearings on Judge Merrick Garland or is it a foregone conclusion that this is just kind of DOA?
Kirk: “I think that given Mitch’s view, I don’t see his view changing too much. You know, eventually, we’ll have an election and we will have a new President. The new President will obviously come forward with a nomination. And that’s all for the politics of a new time.
* From the actual WLS news story…
Illinois Republican U.S. Senator Mark Kirk says his fellow Republicans should “man up” and vote one way or the other on President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland.
Kirk told “The Big John Howell Show” on WLS, “Just man up and cast a vote. The tough thing about these Senatorial jobs is you get yes or no votes. Your whole job is to either say yes or no, and explain why.” […]
Kirk admits it is not likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will change his mind on the issue.
…Adding… Hilarious comment…
DPI is one to talk about pushing a chamber’s leader for an up or down vote on something the public wants.
Exactly right.
Can’t anybody play this game?
- Peets - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:47 am:
DPI steps out and gets slammed. why are they even trying to attack kirk on this. silly.
- illinifan - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:49 am:
I think Al Franken was right. They are opposed to Obama’s choice until after the election. If the Clinton wins then Obama’s choice looks good and then they will move Merrick Garland forward instead of having Clinton potentially nominate a more liberal justice. If an R wins then Garland will not be moved forward.
- ChicagoVinny - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:51 am:
“Senator Kirk and the senate majority leader he controls” /s
- Caitie - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:51 am:
Democrats don’t have much wiggle room with Kirk. They’re firing some cheap shots aimed at convincing uninformed independents that Kirk is a big bad republican.
However, anyone who reads the papers knows where Kirk stands on this issue. The Dems are going to have to try a lot harder to make him into the demon they want him to be.
- MSIX - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:52 am:
Trying to knock out an opponent with a nasty blow is one thing. But you’d better not leave yourself open for a painful counterpunch.
- Slippin' Jimmy - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:53 am:
Any ole whipping boy will do, looks like?
- Niblets - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:56 am:
I think the American people should have a say in the next Supreme Court Justice. HELLO! The American people had a say twice. They said Obama.Loud and clear. I do not expect Kirk to change any of the Republican dinosaurs that are in charge, but they had better be careful. Hillary may have the next choice and she may not be as conciliatory as our current elected president. She might select a new justice that is describe as liberal. That would mean the Supreme court would go back to being moderate after all these years of extreme right wing control. Imagine Citizens United reversed. Imagine reasonable approaches to gun control. Imagine the right to control of women bodies being left with them instead of of being determined
by Catholic men in black dresses.
Oops, I have gone on a tirade. Oh well probably will be edited out. I feel better anyway.
- TominCargie - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:57 am:
- Caitie - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 10:51 am:
Democrats don’t have much wiggle room with Kirk. They’re firing some cheap shots aimed at convincing uninformed independents that Kirk is a big bad republican.
However, anyone who reads the papers knows where Kirk stands on this issue. The Dems are going to have to try a lot harder to make him into the demon they want him to be.
I think the Dem’s message should be that a vote for Kirk for Senate is a vote for McConnell as Majority Leader.
- Century Club - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:02 am:
It’s the easiest place in the world for Kirk - he gets to say (softly) that there should be a vote, knowing all the while that there won’t be. May just be better to let this one lie, Democrats - why do you want to extend a story in which Kirk will continue to say he supports Obama?
- Honeybear - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:04 am:
Senate Rep better take Garland because of one name in history, Taft.
- ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:11 am:
===Democrats - why do you want to extend a story in which Kirk will continue to say he supports Obama?
Ask Jim Leach about that. It’s a fairly compelling case to go, maybe Mark Kirk isn’t the worst person in the world, but he votes to keep the worst person in power when he votes to make Mitch McConnell Majority Leader.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:14 am:
===but he votes to keep the worst person in power when he votes to make Mitch McConnell Majority Leader===
That almost never works in general elections.
Remember “Fire Madigan”? I’m betting he’s much better known than Mitch.
- uptown progressive - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:15 am:
I have sat in Kirk’s office and heard him make the argument, I want to do the right thing but the leader (who my vote helped to elect) wouldn’t let me. Then we need to have a Senator who is part of a party that will get the right thing done.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:17 am:
===I want to do the right thing but the leader (who my vote helped to elect) wouldn’t let me===
That attitude is not confined to the US Senate.
Ever talk to an Illinois House member?
Not excusing Kirk, just sayin…
Making legislative leadership a campaign issue is a slam bang loser. Great for blog comments, usually lousy for campaigns. Even the “Pelosi!” stuff was mostly meaningless.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:24 am:
–Kirk Should Demand Supreme Court Nominee Gets Fair Hearing & Vote–
He did.
He just can’t make it happen.
These windy, self-important committee releases… what are they for? To drum up contributions?
- Not it - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:28 am:
DPI is one to talk about pushing a chamber’s leader for an up or down vote on something the public wants.
- phocion - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:28 am:
Honeybear,
Are you saying that Hillary will appoint Obama to the Supreme Court?
- ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:30 am:
==That almost never works in general elections.
Leach is an example in Iowa-2. I think it needs a couple things to work. First, it has to be a candidate in a district that leans to the other party and then it needs to have specific things it is hung on. In this case, I think we have both–a blue state with a Supreme Court nominee being nominated. If you are targeting moderates and potential crossovers, it can be a strong argument.
- ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:31 am:
That said, I’m not sure it would work as well with the campaign Duckworth is running.
- Juice - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:39 am:
Not it, fair point. And I do think Kirk has positioned himself reasonably on this.
But to counter your point, the US Constitution says that the President shall nominate by and with the the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Illinois constitution does not lay out a similar provision where the Governor shall bloviate and the GA shall vote on whatever is the Governor’s whimsy.
But yeah, DPI probably not the best messenger. (Anyone else surprised that they even have staff working on a US Senate race? Seems very out of character)
- Northsider - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 11:48 am:
FYI, Josh Marshall has picked this up at Talking Points Memo, noting that Sen. Kirk is the first to crack the GOP’s “No, No, NO!” rant: The Achilles Heel
- walker - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 12:09 pm:
With Rich entirely. Kirk took his public position for hearings, then truthfully reported it isn’t going anywhere.
Whatever, all sides try to make mountains out of molehills. This won’t hurt Kirk; and this won’t hurt DPI either.
- Mama - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 12:34 pm:
All Supreme Court Judges should be exempt from political staging!
- Jack Stephens - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 12:57 pm:
If Hilary wins in November, along with a veto proof majority in the Senate…you can bet Obama withdraws his nominee. Republicans will rue the day they blew this one.
Kirk has it right. He understands, on this issue, that there is no clause in the Constitution of the United States of America that says you do your job, except for the last year.
- Jack Stephens - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 1:00 pm:
@niblets:
Couldnt agree more.
Imagine if men had no Constitutional Right to Privacy when it comes to determining eligibility to purchase certain pharmaceutical products that enhance male reproduction organs.
- Ghost - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 1:27 pm:
I was just reading how Kirk was one of two repubs meeting w/ the nominee.
interesting side point, the last 4 supreme court justices nominated and approved during an election year all came from republican presidents. dangerous precedent here to say it shoild t happen, when its your party that has done it the overwhelming amount of time…. includng the repub holy of holies, Ronald Regan who made his nomination in November.
- Sue - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 2:50 pm:
Kirk is right for two reasons- 1st Garland is far less liberal than any nominee HRC might put up and at 63 he won’t serve all that long. Second- should a republican win in November without any disrespect, Ginsberg’s seat would be open soon do the 5 to 4 split would flip early in the next term anyway.
- Annonin' - Friday, Mar 18, 16 @ 3:34 pm:
Capt Fax must be into the silly sauce this afternoon…The House has been votin’ on the BigBrain wish list for nearly a year
Commando MakeItUp is flopping around like a carp waitin’ the Lenten Friday fish fry. Does not seem McConnell is thinkin’ clearly.