Iowans & All:
We have at issue the idea of FAIR PLAY with the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. I hope to address the issues of politics, fair play, hypocrisy, virtue, & legitimacy in a separate post. But first I want to share what I know of the positions of Iowa's two senators about attempting to fill the vacancy before the next administration, whether it be Biden or Trump 2. I'm linking to a letter that I received from Senator Grassley dated 7 March 2016 about his refusal to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the seat of Justice Scalia. As you will see from reading the Senator's letter, he provides a response based on precedent and other not-outrageous contentions. As you can see if you read my response, I didn't find those arguments persuasive, but he did attempt to provide a principled argument for his position.
Does he still adhere to his principles? It appears that he may. The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gop-senators-who-will.../) states the following about Grassley in its article regarding the position of some Republican senators about filling the seat until after the next presidential inauguration:
"Charles E. Grassley
[Senator Lindsey] Graham’s predecessor as Judiciary Committee chairman has also staked out a principled stand that would seem to preclude supporting a nominee in an election year.
Grassley, in defending the Garland gambit in 2018, cited precedent, saying that “it was very legitimate that you can’t have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents.”
Grassley also told NBC News last month that he “couldn’t move forward with it” if he were in charge of the Judiciary Committee like he was for Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees."
(Links embedded in the quote above: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/.../u-s-sen.../604730002/ & https://www.nbcnews.com/.../democrats-warn-gop-don-t-fill....)
Thus, it appears that Grassley is sticking by his principles and holds a position consistent with his actions in the Garland nomination, unlike, for instance, the blatant hypocrisy of Senator Lyndsey Graham, who offers only the tiniest figleaf of principle to in an attempt to cover his lack of manhood.
But here's the real issue: will @Grassley act on his principles? Principles look great framed on a wall or stated in a speech, but when push comes to shove, principles are worthless as tits on boar (I had to use a real Iowa farm simile) if they aren't ENACTED. One (me) always hope that Grassley, who's been in Congress since 1975 (and the Senate since 1980) and who's been held in some esteem by his colleagues, observers, and voters, would stand-up to the ire of Trump and McConnell that he will no doubt incur if acts upon his stated principles. This is my hope, my wish. I've been let down by Grassley many times, but at this stage of his career, maybe he'll start to consider his legacy, whether he acts to reduce the fever now raging in American politics or instead stand-by and watch the continued decline of American democracy.
As to
Senator Joni Ernst
the same Washington Post article I cited above about Grassley also makes note of Ernst. The article reports: "Joni Ernst
The Iowa senator also faces a tough reelection battle this year, and despite in 2016 promoting the idea that the new president would make that pick, she said in July that she’d support voting on a nominee — even in a lame duck.
“[If] it is a lame-duck session, I would support going ahead with any hearings that we might have,” Ernst said. “And if it comes to an appointment prior to the end of the year, I would be supportive of that.”
SNG: This is not surprising. While hope springs eternal with me about Grassley, with Ernst it's perpetual winter. She speaks out both sides of her mouth on this, and she'd do cartwheels on the Senate floor if Trump and McConnell so much as gave her a stern look. She's locked in a death-match over her Senate seat currently and must do her master's bidding.
