Throughout her eponymous MSNBC show on Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow bitterly aired her frustrations that “non-controversial” and “moderate” Judge Merrick Garland wasn’t elevated to the Supreme Court thanks to a “radical” decision by Republicans to hold out for a conservative like newly-appointed nominee Neil Gorsuch.
The meltdown was evident from the first minute as Maddow complained that Republicans decided to “hold open” the late Antonin Scalia’s seat because Obama was “a Democrat and they didn't believe they had to and so they believed they would not, thank you very much, and that has never before happened in our country.”
“[T]onight, that radical decision, not a radical decision by Donald Trump but a radical decision by the Republican Party in the Senate — tonight, that radical act by congressional Republicans, it bore fruit — awkwardly-phrased fruit, a little hiccup in the execution in the end but still,” the petulant host added.
Just over 15 minutes later, the resentful host continued this spiteful streak:
And immediately after Justice Scalia died, literally the night of his death Republicans in the Senate came out and said they wouldn't allow a vote on any nominee to replace him. President Obama ended up, the following month, nominating Merrick Garland anyway. The definition of a non-controversial, moderate choice. The Republicans never even held a hearing on him. They, instead, have held open that seat for more than a year simply because they didn't want a Democratic President to appoint someone to the Court...[N]ew Republican rule, Democrats don't get to appoint Supreme Court justices. Republican Senators now openly hewing to the newly-defined Washington, D.C. principle that only Republicans Presidents are allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices now.
Maddow ignored the existence of the Biden rule, fretting about how “the Republicans held a seat open for a year for 100 percent partisan purposes which is the only reason the new President had this seat to fill tonight and announcing the nomination will go to Neil Gorsuch.”
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Speaking about ten minutes later to NYU’s Kenji Yoshino, Maddow tried to backtrack or at least explain herself on dubbing the GOP decision “radical” to not approve Garland:
It seems to me like the truly radical thing that has happened is the Merrick Garland nomination having been blanked by the Republicans. I really feel like — I mean, I didn't feel — I didn't mean to say it this bluntly, but I don't know any other way to explain the principle they applied to that which is that a Democratic president shouldn't be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court nominee, not when Republicans are in control of the nomination process because they control the Senate. That was the truly radical act. It seems like the choice of Judge Gorsuch is a relatively mainstream choice that you might expect from any Republican president but the circumstances around this nomination are still radical[.]
Finally at the 9:41 p.m. Eastern mark, Maddow seized one last chance to wallow in Garland not joining the Court, opining that he “faced this unprecedented blockade by Republican Senators who refused since last March to even hold a hearing on his nomination despite the fact Merrick Garland was a completely non-controversial nomination.”
Here are the relevant portions of the transcript from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show on January 31:
MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show
January 31, 20179:01 p.m. Eastern
RACHEL MADDOW: And with almost exactly a year left in his presidency, we learned that Barack Obama would get to name a Court nominee to fill the seat vacated on the Court by the death of Antonin Scalia — or not. Even before former President Obama named his nominee, even before he named Judge Merrick Garland, Republicans announced that they would hold open the Scalia seat. They would not hold hearings for any Obama nominee. No matter who the President picked, they were not going to consider his nominee. Honestly because the President is a Democrat and they didn't believe they had to and so they believed they would not thank you very much and that has never before happened in our country. Not like that, but tonight, that radical decision, not a radical decision by Donald Trump but a radical decision by the Republican Party in the Senate — tonight, that radical act by congressional Republicans, it bore fruit — awkwardly-phrased fruit, a little hiccup in the execution in the end but still.
(....)
9:04 p.m. Eastern
MADDOW: Democrats in the Senate, even before Neil Gorsuch was announced tonight, Senate Democrats had openly mulled whether they should try to reciprocate in kind what the Republicans did to President Obama with holding this seat open for almost a year.
(....)
9:17 p.m. Eastern
MADDOW: And immediately after Justice Scalia died, literally the night of his death Republicans in the Senate came out and said they wouldn't allow a vote on any nominee to replace him. President Obama ended up, the following month, nominating Merrick Garland anyway. The definition of a non-controversial, moderate choice. The Republicans never even held a hearing on him. They, instead, have held open that seat for more than a year simply because they didn't want a Democratic President to appoint someone to the Court. Several Republican Senators said before the presidential election that if Hillary Clinton won the election, they would continue to hold that seat open for four years, for eight years if necessary because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and new Republican rule, Democrats don't get to appoint Supreme Court justices. Republican Senators now openly hewing to the newly-defined Washington, D.C. principle that only Republicans Presidents are allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices now. The nominating process was already getting harder than it was historically and way more partisan and that was before the Republicans held a seat open for a year for 100 percent partisan purposes which is the only reason the new President had this seat to fill tonight and announcing the nomination will go to Neil Gorsuch. This was going to be hard anyway, right? Just look at the history, but now, I think it is safe to assume that Democrats are going to make this as difficult as humanly possible even before we knew who the name of the nominee would be.
(....)
9:26 p.m. Eastern
MADDOW: It seems to me like the truly radical thing that has happened is the Merrick Garland nomination having been blanked by the Republicans. I really feel like — I mean, I didn't feel — I didn't mean to say it this bluntly, but I don't know any other way to explain the principle they applied to that which is that a Democratic president shouldn't be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court nominee, not when Republicans are in control of the nomination process because they control the Senate. That was the truly radical act. It seems like the choice of Judge Gorsuch is a relatively mainstream choice that you might expect from any Republican president but the circumstances around this nomination are still radical because of the Garland nomination because how long this seat has been held vacant and because of that — that partisan precedent or the breaking of non-partisan precedent which we've now seen.
(....)
9:41 p.m. Eastern
MADDOW: President Obama's two nominees in his first term, I'd like to get really specific, right? Because they don't want to talk about the third nomination that President Obama made. No mention of Merrick Garland, President Obama's third nominee who faced this unprecedented blockade by Republican Senators who refused since last March to even hold a hearing on his nomination despite the fact Merrick Garland was a completely non-controversial nomination. Well, tonight, the new Republican President has announced that Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch is his choice for that Supreme Court seat that Merrick Garland was supposed to be the nominee for.
