If Democrats take control of the Senate this election, then Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court confirmation may hinge on a two-week period in January after the new Congress convenes but before the next president is sworn in, says veteran New York Times correspondent Carl Hulse.
“I don’t think [Garland] gets approved in the lame duck,” Hulse, the chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, told David Axelrod on “The Axe Files” podcast, produced by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN. “Mitch McConnell has made it extremely clear that he is not going to have his fingerprints on confirmation of a third Barack Obama appointment to the Supreme Court,” Hulse said.
While the prospects are challenging, if Democrats were to win a majority in the Senate, then they could try to push through Garland’s nomination when the new Congress convenes on January 3 — if the White House renominates him, as many suspect.
“It’s possible,” Hulse said of the January confirmation, while allowing that “it would be kind of tricky” given Senate rules and procedures that would need to be successfully navigated. But, Hulse continued, “I don’t think it’s inconceivable, and that way the Republicans wouldn’t be pushing him through.”
If Hillary Clinton is elected president and Garland’s nomination is not acted on in that period, Hulse believes her best path forward would be to avoid a political battle over a new nominee and instead renominate Garland as a consensus choice.
“It’s a lot of political capital she won’t have to use right then. And I don’t know if that’s what you want to be your immediate fight,” Hulse reasoned.
But if Republican senators continue to block the confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee — a scenario that has been discussed recently by Senator Ted Cruz and others — and Democrats control the presidency and the Senate, then Hulse expects Democrats to pursue the so-called “nuclear option” and eliminate the minority’s ability to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.
“I think if there was a concerted attempt to stonewall Supreme Court nominees indefinitely, that the Democrats would obviously eliminate [the filibuster],” Hulse said.
Turning to the power dynamics in the Republican House Conference, Hulse, who has covered Congress for years, discussed the “super complicated” politics that await Paul Ryan if he is to be reeelected speaker in the new Congress.
“Does [Ryan] even want the job any more?” Hulse asked, before going on to explain that if he does, then Ryan will likely inherit a more conservative group of members, and the realities of governing will be such that Ryan will be forced to make deals with Democrats in order to fulfill the most basic functions of governing, like raising the debt limit and passing spending bills.
When that happens, Hulse asked, “Do the people on the right of him start complaining again like they did with (then-Speaker John) Boehner and drive him out?”
While that much is unclear, it is certain that whoever is leading House Republicans will preside over a body less intent on getting things done than on causing political havoc for Clinton if she is elected president.
Remarking on the news from last week that House Republicans plan to continue holding congressional investigations into various aspects of Clinton’s record, Hulse argued, “Let’s say Hillary Clinton has a fairly good Election Day, right? She wins, she rolls up a nice electoral count, wins the Senate, and then faces investigation after investigation. That is not a great climate for political progress.”
To hear the whole conversation with Hulse, which also touched on how Washington has changed during his years covering Congress, why restoring earmarks in some form might lessen gridlock in Washington, and the chances that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is passed in the lame duck session of Congress, click on http://podcast.cnn.com. To get “The Axe Files” podcast every week, subscribe at http://itunes.com/theaxefiles.
