Instead of doing their job, some Republican senators are attempting to get credit for agreeing to simply meet with Supreme Court nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland – all while refusing to call for a hearing or a vote. It’s a polite gesture, but it has nothing to do with the actual, constitutional process for confirming a nominee, and cannot be used as a fig leaf to distract from the fact that Republican senators are still collecting a paycheck while refusing to do their jobs.
“Agreeing to meet with someone is good manners but not a substitute for fulfilling your constitutional duties. Do-nothing Republican senators in Washington should not get recognition for something that has no bearing whatsoever on the constitutional process for confirming a justice. For over 200 years, lawmakers from both parties have followed the constitution and done their jobs when it comes to the Supreme Court. What makes these do-nothing Republican senators think they’re exempt from doing their jobs?” – DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach
Here’s a running list of the do-nothing Republican senators who have agreed with Chief Judge Merrick Garland, but refuse to do their jobs and hold hearings to confirm him.
Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (IA) compared Merrick Garland to Idi Amin, saying, “If I can meet with a dictator in Uganda, I can surely meet with a decent person in America.” Classy. Still not doing his job, though.
Failed GOP Presidential Candidate Marco Rubio (FL) said he was, “more than happy to talk to anybody.”
Pat Toomey (PA) said he would meet with Garland out of “courtesy and respect,” but won’t extend courtesy or respect to Pennsylvania voters who want him to do his job.
Kelly Ayotte (NH) initially opposed meeting Garland. Her spokeswoman then flip-flopped, saying she would meet with him out of “courtesy and respect.” Still not a substitute for doing her job.
Ron Johnson (WI) said he has “no problem meeting with people.” Unfortunately, Wisconsin voters have a big problem with him not doing his job.
Jeff Flake (AZ), said, “I meet with anybody and that would include him.” But he reiterated he’s still flaking on doing his job to hold hearings and confirm Judge Garland.
James Inhofe (OK) said he would meet with Garland, whom he backed in 1997, but there’s a snowball’s chance he’ll actually do his job this time around.
James Lankford (OK) said “I have no problem meeting with him,” but apparently still has a problem doing his job.