Appearing on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on Monday, Hardball host Chris Matthews blasted Republican opposition to President Obama nominating a successor to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “...this almost indecent march to rejection here within minutes of the announcement of Judge Scalia's death....it was like a Dickensian scene in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge or somebody’s died – dead and they come rushing in to take the sheets off the bed before he's dead.”
Matthews ranted: “It's not like they're going to reject the nominee. They weren't even going to consider the nominee. That's pretty strong stuff.... I mean, this haste in which this was announced that they were going to reject this, even a consideration of the President's nominee, if there is gonna be a nominee, was awful.”
Despite the nasty accusation from Matthews, it was Mitchell and her liberal guests who ghoulishly strategized over how Democrats could use Scalia’s passing to their political advantage. In an earlier segment, the host warned the GOP:
You have gridlock in the Court and you have gridlock in the Senate. Susan, we've got blue-state senators – purple-state senators, I should say – up for reelection in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin. So the Senate is in balance as well if there is independent voter reaction against the gridlock. If the President does something that some are saying would be politically smart and nominate someone beyond reproach who had been reasonably, unanimously confirmed by this Senate for federal judgeship.
USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page excitedly replied: “You can see the ads, ‘Why won't Kelly Ayotte let the Supreme Court have nine full members?’....how do these Republican senators in purple states, in competitive races, decide that it's not worth giving him a hearing? I think that's politically a tough spot for them to be in.”
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus chimed in: “...voters will potentially punish them for not doing their jobs...”
Page predicted: “And you know, over this next year that could put additional pressure on the Senate to cooperate. If we have a series of four-four decisions....Each time that happens, there’ll be the question, this doesn't have to be a tie if we had a ninth justice on the Court.”
When talking to Matthews, Mitchell proclaimed: “They’ve said they’re not going to even hold a hearing, the Republicans have, but there is a scenario where if he [Obama] chooses someone who is so universally respected, he could dare Mitch McConnell not to change his mind.”
Moments later, she fretted: “The Court has been in balance now for more than forty years, five-four, a conservative majority....And so now this is the opportunity for an historic change and they want to deny that to Barack Obama.”
Here are excerpts of the February 15 coverage:
12:27 PM ET
(...)
ANDREA MITCHELL: You have gridlock in the Court and you have gridlock in the Senate. Susan, we've got blue-state senators – purple-state senators, I should say – up for reelection in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin. So the Senate is in balance as well if there is independent voter reaction against the gridlock. If the President does something that some are saying would be politically smart and nominate someone beyond reproach who had been reasonably, unanimously confirmed by this Senate for federal judgeship.
SUSAN PAGE [USA TODAY]: You can see the ads, “Why won't Kelly Ayotte let the Supreme Court have nine full members?” You know, these Republican senators will have to choose between siding with their leadership, which says no vote, no confirmation.
MITCHELL: And Kelly Ayotte has already come out and sided with McConnell.
PAGE: And said she will. And if the president, as we actually assume he’ll do, somebody who is universally respected, not some liberal firebrand that sparks a big reaction from Republicans. Why – how do these Republican senators in purple states, in competitive races, decide that it's not worth giving him a hearing? I think that's politically a tough spot for them to be in.
(...)
RUTH MARCUS [WASHINGTON POST]: So the way to do this is perhaps two things. One, for the President to show good faith and the other is to make, I think, a dual argument to senators. First, that voters will potentially punish them for not doing their jobs, and second, that, you know, let's be serious, the control of the Senate is up for grabs, too. The Senate could come back with a Democrat in there – in the Republican senators worse case scenario – a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate and get a way worse nominee than – from their point of view – than the one that the President would send them.
(...)
MITCHELL: And, Susan, the issues, abortion, immigration, the union issue, the issues that would be tied up in a four-four split, presumably, and the lower court would prevail.
PAGE: And you know, over this next year that could put additional pressure on the Senate to cooperate. If we have a series of four-four decisions that are, some of them disappointing to conservatives because they’re looking for that fifth vote. Some of them disappointing for liberals who are looking for a decision that would go the other way. Each time that happens, there’ll be the question, this doesn't have to be a tie if we had a ninth justice on the Court. It seems to me that's one thing. I'm not saying it's easy or likely, but I think it's possible that the politics of this plays out and the nomination plays out to have confirmation hearings and a vote sometime this year.MARCUS: Why not hold hearings?
(...)
12:46 PM
MITCHELL: They’ve said they’re not going to even hold a hearing, the Republicans have, but there is a scenario where if he chooses someone who is so universally respected, he could dare Mitch McConnell not to change his mind.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yes, and the other part of it is – that's all true. And I thought from the beginning of this, this almost indecent march to rejection here within minutes of the announcement of Judge Scalia's death. They were – a communications director on one of the Senate staffs on Judiciary was saying, “No way it’s gonna happen.” So fast. Didn't they have to get together and – the thing is, they didn’t have to coordinate to decide to reject. They all, to the last man or last woman, in fact, in this case, all said, “No, we're not even going to have hearings, we’re not going to have a vote.” It's not like they're going to reject the nominee. They weren't even going to consider the nominee. That's pretty strong stuff. That starts at McConnell, goes to Grassley, the chair of the committee, and right down the line.
MITCHELL: Grassley’s up for reelection, too, in Iowa. They clearly have figured out where they think the political winds are blowing because Kelly Ayotte, from a purple state, New Hampshire – obviously you can look at the election returns from the primary in New Hampshire and you see how independent and Republican voters are, you know, swinging this year.
(...)
MITCHELL: The Court has been in balance now for more than forty years, five-four, a conservative majority, except for some swings by Tony Kennedy and a couple of other outlying instances but it’s been basically a five-four conservative majority. And so now this is the opportunity for an historic change and they want to deny that to Barack Obama. Of course, they have to realize, as someone was just suggesting, Susan Page I think, that there is a 50-50 chance that a Democrat will be elected, bringing in a Democratic Senate. So the moderate that they –
MATTHEWS: Bringing a majority. Maybe not 60 votes.
MITCHELL: Correct.
MATTHEWS: I don't think the nuclear option applies here. I think you need 60 votes.
MITCHELL: You need 60 votes.
MATTHEWS: I don't think we've ever understood. I mean, the fact that Scalia came in with 98 votes, these are distant eras when people got those kind of votes because of their qualifications. And I think this to me is the zenith, the nadir rather, of American politics right now. The inability to even consider a nomination for the Supreme Court and just say, “Well, we can’t even agree to agree, so let’s not even bother voting on it.”
(...)
MATTHEWS: I'm watching this rush to judgment, to use an old phrase, it was like a Dickensian scene in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge or somebody’s died – dead and they come rushing in to take the sheets off the bed before he's dead. I mean, this haste in which this was announced that they were going to reject this, even a consideration of the President's nominee, if there is gonna be a nominee, was awful.
MITCHELL: And Chris Matthews, as always, taking the bigger picture.
(...)
