Force Garland vote

Reid won't rule out move to force Garland vote

By Seung Min Kim

Senate Democrats aren’t ruling out using a rare parliamentary maneuver to force a confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland — an option recently floated by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley.

The development came as Garland completed another round of one-on-one meetings with senators on the Hill, including with one Republican who has forcefully advocated that the GOP majority move forward on the nomination process this year.

Still, other Republicans continued to stress Tuesday that they were holding firm against confirming Garland while President Barack Obama is still in office. That status quo in the GOP-led Senate appears to have barely budged, even after an aggressive Democratic public-relations campaign during the recess pushing Republicans to take up the Supreme Court nominee.

“We have 52 Republicans who don’t think we need either a hearing or a vote in committee,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday. “I think it’s safe to say there will not be hearings or votes. I think it is also safe to say the next president, whoever that may be, is going to be the person who chooses the next Supreme Court justice.”

So Democrats are beginning to crack open the door to other options. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that a so-called motion to discharge, which is meant to allow Garland’s nomination to essentially circumvent Grassley’s committee, is “certainly” one idea in the Democrats’ arsenal.

“There are many procedural things we can do. That’s one thing we can do,” Reid told reporters. “Certainly, we’ve got that arrow quiver to do that and other things if we choose. But right now, I think we’re in a good place.”

During his town halls in Iowa over the congressional recess, Grassley raised the prospect of such a procedural vote — which would be difficult to pull off, but possible, under Senate rules. The Judiciary Committee chairman said despite the GOP’s refusal to allow Garland’s nomination to proceed, he believed Democrats would force the Republicans’ hands by triggering the parliamentary option.

Engaging in procedural jujitsu over Garland is certainly not Democrats’ first choice. For now, they want to keep pressure on Republicans in this first phase of the fight to confirm Garland to the Supreme Court.

“I think what Sen. Grassley should do is tend to his own business and leave ours alone,” Reid said. “We feel comfortable where we are. The obligation is for them to hold hearings and to have a vote.”

The Democratic pressure campaign will continue this week. The Constitutional Responsibility Project, the pro-Garland operation coordinated by former aides to President Barack Obama, is launching the #CallForNine initiative this week, in which more than 50 organizations will lead efforts to flood the phone lines of Senate GOP offices, urging Republicans to take up Garland’s nomination.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, one of just two GOP senators who want Garland’s nomination to proceed this year, met with the federal appellate judge for more than an hour on Tuesday. She told reporters that she came away from the meeting “more convinced than ever” that the Senate should act on Garland’s nomination this year.

Calling Garland “extremely straightforward,” Collins declined to say whether she should vote to confirm him at this point. But it was clear from her remarks that Collins was impressed with Garland’s responses during the lengthy meeting, during which the two covered topics such as gun rights, executive power and the role of the Supreme Court.

“I am not optimistic that I will be changing minds on this issue,” Collins said of other Republican senators. “But I think if more of my colleagues sit down with Judge Garland,” they “are going to be impressed with him.”

Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the other Republican who met privately with Garland on Tuesday, wasn’t as charitable. The senator said he agreed to the White House’s request to meet with Garland because “we can disagree without being disagreeable,” but he said Garland’s nomination should go no further beyond the brief courtesy meeting he hosted.

“During our meeting I conveyed to Judge Garland my position, which is that the next president should fill the vacancy,” Boozman said. “My position is firm. That means I will not advocate for hearings or a vote, nor will I support filling the vacancy with President Obama’s pick after the election.”