CASPER — Roughly half a year before the 2016 presidential election, Sen. John Barrasso justified Republicans’ decision to block a vote on then Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland by saying the American people should “consider it as part of deciding who to support in November.”

Just two days after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and with only about six weeks until the 2020 presidential election, Barrasso now believes that decision should be made before voters return to the polls.

With their Senate majority and the presidency vulnerable, Republicans will be rushing to confirm a new Supreme Court justice this fall.

In two separate appearances on the cable news circuit over the weekend, Barrasso said President Donald Trump could choose his nominee to replace Ginsburg as early as this week after the president said Republicans have “an obligation” to fill the seat as soon as possible.

That contrasts greatly with the attitudes of Senate Republicans in 2016, who blocked the nomination of Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee, following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in an effort to save that seat for a conservative and help tip the nation’s highest court in their favor.

During an interview from his Casper office with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on Sunday morning, Barrasso was asked why he didn’t want to let the voters speak first.

The senator said Republicans’ current plans are consistent with precedent.

As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman in 1992, Sen. Joe Biden — whose Democrats controlled the Senate — declared that there would be no vote on Republican President George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the bench in an effort to similarly let the people have a voice in the next Supreme Court justice.

Biden’s speech at the time related to a hypothetical choice, and he never actually had the opportunity to kill the president’s nomination.

Still, it was seized on by Republicans in 2016 and now to argue that GOP actions are not hypocritical but consistent with precedent: If the Senate and president are not of the same party, then the matter should be delayed. If they are of the same party, then the nomination should proceed full speed ahead.

“Let’s be very clear,” Barrasso said Sunday morning. “If the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court.”

Republicans have said differently, however.

In 2018, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham even committed that the Senate would not vote on a Supreme Court justice if an opening came in 2020, telling attendees at The Atlantic Festival to “use my words against me” should the situation ever arise.

With a Democratic “trifecta” possible in 2020, MSNBC’s Todd told Barrasso that the effort to tilt the bench further to the right was not just ideologically inconsistent but sounded “like a power grab, pure and simple.”

In a way, it could be: Barrasso said in a hypothetical world where Democrats held the presidency and the Senate, they would be doing the exact same thing.

“Chuck Schumer has been very clear, the Democrats have been very clear. If they win the White House and the Senate, all bets are off,” Barrasso said.

Despite the optics, Republicans are playing by the rules, said Sen. Mike Enzi in a statement of his own.

And like the Republican-majority Senate of 2016, the Republicans in the Senate this year plan to exercise their role in that process to their advantage.

“The Constitution gives the Senate the right to advise and consent on a Supreme Court nominee,” Enzi wrote in a statement Monday. “Last time a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in a presidential year, the Senate and president were of opposing parties. A vacancy under divided government during an election year hasn’t been filled in more than 130 years. I supported upholding that precedent in 2016. But we are not in a divided government now and the Senate has confirmed multiple judges in similar situations in the past. The Senate should continue to follow that precedent and consider President Trump’s nominee.”

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have made controlling the judiciary a critical point for their reelection campaigns.

In a fundraising email on Aug. 4, Barrasso reminded voters that the Republicans had helped to deliver “strong judicial candidates confirmed to the federal bench.”

Other GOP leaders have stressed their work confirming additional Trump-nominated justices as a reason to vote Republican this fall.

It remains to be seen how the upcoming election will play into the nomination process.

Vulnerable lawmakers like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have already come out against supporting a nominee prior to the election.

Other vulnerable senators could be reluctant to support the election of a Supreme Court nominee and risk mobilizing Democratic voters: a very real possibility, according to polling.

According to a Morning Consult poll released Monday, approximately 50% of all voters — including 49% of all independents — believed the winner of November’s elections should pick the next Supreme Court Justice.

Just 31% of all independents and 37% of all voters combined believed President Trump should make that choice.

Managing Editor Rebecca Huntington has worked for newspapers across the West. She hosts a rescue podcast, The Fine Line. Her family minivan doubles as her not-so-high-tech recording studio.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.
As of Oct. 18, 2020, the News&Guide has shifted to a subscriber-only commenting policy. You can read about this decision on our About Us page. Thanks for engaging in the conversation!

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.