Gov. Sandoval doesn’t want to be considered for Supreme Court

The Democrats ventured across the street from the Capitol and stood in a brisk wind in front of the Supreme Court building, where they criticized Republicans for refusing to consider any nominee to fill the spot left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

As I noted yesterday, selecting Sandoval would have placed Senate Republicans in a particularly interesting political position vis a vis their “No Hearings, No Votes” strategy regarding the current Supreme Court vacancy, so for that reason alone it’s unfortunate that we’ll miss out on that particular bit of political theater.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday dismissed questions about Democrats’ past positions on Supreme Court nominations.

Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday reiterated that the Senate would not act on any Supreme Court nominee until the next president takes office in January 2017, following the November 8 presidential election. “Justices have “an obligation to the Court” before deciding to recuse themselves”, he wrote. It is vital to our judicial system. “What is going on in Washington is just beyond anything I have seen”, Clinton said Thursday.

In 2006, 24 Democrats – including then-Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Sandoval met with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on Monday in Washington while he was in town for a meeting of the National Governors Association. “It’s up to the American people to decide whether we preserve his legacy”.

Reid told CNN he would back Sandoval for the appointment telling that news agency, “he’s a good person, has a great record and has been a tremendously good governor in spite of having to deal with some very big problems there”. His Democratic challenger Russ Feingold supports Obama and the Senate moving forward with filling the vacancy.

The Obama White House was probably angling on softening the GOP with this centrist Republican in order to announce his true nominee, which some say would be Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Liberal groups closely aligned with the White House and the Democratic Party have already begun targeting Sens. The key could well be Republican senators who are up for re-election – such as Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Paul Kirk of IL and Rob Portman of OH – who could be hurt by perceived obstructionism against an impeccably qualified individual.

“To have the potential of a-year-and-a-half from now four-four votes on issues that are really going to make an impact for all of us is the wrong direction to go”, McGee said.

Obama suggested Wednesday that some Republicans may be holding the line in public while privately appearing ashamed of their stance.

“I will tell you what”. Nor would he meet with a nominee. “They’re pretty sheepish about it when they make those comments”, he said in the Oval Office. There are few signs yet of that happening.

“The committee is failing the people of Iowa and the nation”, Reid said yesterday. Over the past sixty years, of the twenty-eight nominees considered, the Senate has also confirmed nine out of ten-including eight out of ten when the President and the majority of the Senate were from opposing parties, as they are now.