Image 01 Image 03

McConnell: I’ll Block Biden SCOTUS Appointment in 2024 (and Maybe 2023) If I’m Majority Leader

McConnell: I’ll Block Biden SCOTUS Appointment in 2024 (and Maybe 2023) If I’m Majority Leader

Says “it’s highly unlikely. In fact, no, I don’t think either party, if it controlled [the Senate], if it were [a] different [party] from the president, would confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election. What was different in 2020 was we were of the same party as the president.”

Mitch McConnell regrets nothing about preventing consideration of Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in the last year of Obama’s second term, during a presidential year. In fact, McConnell considers it one of his greatest achievements.

Contrary to the way Democrats and the mainstream media portray it, McConnell was consistent when he then marshalled through Amy Coney Barret’s nomination during an election year when Trump was president.

The key point, which McConnell made during the Garland events, was that the party in control of the Senate differed from the party controlling the presidency, and in that circumstance historical practice was not to consider a SCOTUS nomination in a presidential election year.

As I pointed out in May 2019:

McConnell said this on March 1, 2016: “you’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the WH to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the WH. So this vacancy will not be filled this year.”

McConnell made a similar distinction in October 2018:

What I’m telling you is the history is you have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a Senate controlled by a party different from the president filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was created in the middle of a presidential election year. That’s been the history.

In 2020, Republicans controlled the Senate and the presidency, so the Garland precedent did not apply.

McConnell has been incredibly consistent on this point, and reiterated it again today during an interview with Hugh Hewitt. If Republicans regain control of the Senate in 2022, McConnell reserves the right to clock Biden SCOTUS appointments in 2024, a presidential election year. He would have to wait and see what he would do if Biden nominated someone beyond the 2024 calendar year:

“If you regain the majority in 2022 for the Republicans … would the rule that you applied in 2016 to the Scalia vacancy apply in 2024 to any vacancy that occurred then?” Hewitt asked.

“Well, I think in the middle of a presidential election, if you have a Senate of the opposite party of the president, you have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy was filled,” McConnell replied. “So I think it’s highly unlikely. In fact, no, I don’t think either party, if it controlled [the Senate], if it were [a] different [party] from the president, would confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election. What was different in 2020 was we were of the same party as the president.”

When asked if he would consider a nominee from Biden in 2023, McConnell wouldn’t commit even to that, saying, “Well, we’d have to wait and see what happens.”

McConnell reiterated that stopping Garland was his greatest achievement.

The reaction was predictable:

Democrats are using the comment to renew their pressure campaign to get Justice Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of the current term in June:

“Breyer needs to retire,” liberal activist Charlotte Clymer tweeted. “Greatness in public service has to also mean knowing when it’s time to pass the baton, and it’s time.”

“Certainly feels good to yell online about this,” former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau added, “but the only audience that really matters is Stephen Breyer, @JoeManchinWV, @kyrstensinema, and a handful of other Senate Dems who are hiding behind them.”

Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., who has been vocal in supporting packing the Supreme Court and in calling for Breyer to step down, also weighed in on McConnell’s comment.

“When I became the first person in Congress to call for Justice Breyer to retire now, while President Biden can still appoint a successor, some people asked whether it was necessary,” Jones said. “Yes. Yes, it is.”

The Honey Badger don’t care.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


If the communists hate it so much, it’s a great idea. I don’t like being in a position where I have to support McConnell. However, letting a dementia-ridden pedophile traitor seat lifetime judges seems a much worse idea.

filiusdextris | June 14, 2021 at 5:15 pm

Even if his announced strategy 100% corresponded to his actual intentions, what possible good could come from announcing such?

    Valerie in reply to filiusdextris. | June 14, 2021 at 5:20 pm

    SOB is offering me a bribe. 😉

    Milhouse in reply to filiusdextris. | June 14, 2021 at 5:29 pm

    So that if it happens the Dems can’t claim he’s changing the rules on them.

    He was asked point blank whether the 2016 precedent still applies; what choice did he have but to say it did?

    Olinser in reply to filiusdextris. | June 14, 2021 at 6:51 pm

    It says that he’s realizing just how badly he and the other RINOs have fucked the pooch with their base. Nobody believes them or trusts them to do anything.

    This is purely him frantically trying to do damage control because there’s serious talk about refusing to vote for Republican Senators if they are planning to keep him in power.

      Danny in reply to Olinser. | June 16, 2021 at 2:10 pm

      So you don’t trust the man who blocked all Obama judges 2014 onwards including the horror we now call AG, confirmed judges you like to continue blocking judges you don’t like because of a little bit of rhetoric you love?

      His record speaks for itself and we should be supporting not undermining him because of his record.

    Ironclaw in reply to filiusdextris. | June 14, 2021 at 6:55 pm

    Firing up the base ahead of primary season.

Well, I am impressed. Flabbergasted, even. In fact, I am so inspired I am gonna send that fat contribution to the RNC pronto. Tomorrow first thing….no, I will send it tonight. In fact I will buy a plane ticket to deliver the check in person ASAP.

Too bad McConnell didn’t take the same position when he helped to usher through so many other Biden* nominees earlier this year (Lloyd Austin – the genocidal SecDef – was confirmed 93-2). At the very least Harris should have had to be in the Senate 24/7 to cast so many tiebreaker votes she would need a pup tent and a Port-a-Potty.

After all, McConnell keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court in order to make room for …. wait for it …. Neil Gorsuch. Whee. And McConnell voted to confirm Garland as AG earlier this year “because of his long reputation as a straight-shooter and legal expert.”. Double whee. Yep….writin’ that check to the RNC right now…..

Nothing a better, more principled, and less RINO-y leader couldn’t accomplish. Get out of the way Mitch.

thalesofmiletus | June 14, 2021 at 6:02 pm

LOL @ “””white media”””

How about instead you fuck off and never come back and somebody actually interested in fighting for conservative values does it instead, Bitch McConnell.

SCOTUS just punted on the Harvard Asian discrimination lawsuit and requested the view of the current administration

Speaking about racist behavior

Michael Burry author of “The Big Short” Re: racist Morgan Stanley

Morgan Stanley job posting: Whites and Asians cannot apply

Michael Burry’s tweet:

    Milhouse in reply to catscradle. | June 14, 2021 at 7:18 pm

    It did not “punt”. It did the standard thing that it routinely does on important questions where the government might have a perspective, and called for the solicitor general’s view. That’s how the system works. The supreme court gets tens of thousands of cert petitions every year, and has to decide which 80 or so are important enough for its attention. In deciding this it often asks the SG for his opinion on how important a case is.

McConnell has a history, We have no good reason to believe him.

    Milhouse in reply to geronl. | June 14, 2021 at 7:20 pm

    Um, sure we do. He did it last time. Nothing has changed since then, so it stands to reason that he’d do the same thing again. And the fact that he didn’t do it in 2020, out of some perverse wish to be seen as “pure”, as the actual RINOs wanted him to, shows that he has the right perspective on this.

      Why do you start your retorts with a condescending “Um….”?

      Um, worse, is you’re WRONG: McConnell does have a ‘history’, and it’s one of being owned by a foreign power who seeks our destruction:

        I think Milhouse is pointing out that McConnell’s position is consistent and that there isn’t really a good reason to think he might act differently. The logic of what you are implying that you cant believe him is that he will all of a sudden stop acting as the opposition. As Minority Leader he has demonstrated a willingness to be a obstructive as possible. I’m not really sure what his business dealings have to do with how he will act in the regard of obstructing supreme court nominees?

        1. That article has nothing about McConnell or his wife being owned by China, I just read it and what you promised (McConnell and his family owned by a foreign power) isn’t there.

        2. Women gained independence from their husbands well over a hundred years in this country which means a man is not legally responsible for what his wife does she is legally and ethically autonomous. Assuming everything in the article is true and Elaine Chao is fast and loose with government ethical guidelines what exactly does that have to do with Mitch McConnell and does your new standard apply to women as well as men? Not that I think you would ever apply this standard to someone you like.

        3. Now that you agree Newsweek is a credible source to use for the most indirect trashing of McConnell in history (“Look his wife broke ethical guidelines for a government official he clearly is a communist!”) would you like to debate me on Jan 6th which I say was a riot like countless riots in 2020 and that it was no worst than those and left less destruction than countless others and we should all move on it is not an issue while your position that it was an insurrection (a position taken by the very article you sighted) will be taken by you? I’m a tad surprised you agree that Jan 6th is an insurrection but I would like to debate you on that. You sighted as fully credible an article that explicitly calls it an insurrection.

    Danny in reply to geronl. | June 16, 2021 at 2:14 pm

    A history of blocking all Obama judges as soon as he was capable of doing so, and of making sure all of Trump’s nominees got through.

    Do you understand that demonizing McConnell based on a figment of your imagination keeps people from voting for our side in 2022?

    Keep it up if you want Schumer to remain in charge it will work well.

I have no idea the level of threat, coercion, even blackmail that congress critters are capable of with one another. But 5 months into a 50/50 senate, with the filibuster still intact, I wonder if McConnell has pissed in Schumer’s ear a threat that has ensured a mutually agreeable stalemate on Biden’s progressive agenda.

Imagine McConnell to Schumer: “We wanted Trump gone every bit as much as you did because all of us are dirty. So we said nothing of the fraud that took Trump out last November. But make no mistake, we know what you did and we have the evidence we need to blow everything to hell. IF you so much as move to eliminate the filibuster, we’ll go public with it. So we’re partners. Got it?”

McConnell’s supreme court comments may just be a reminder to Biden, Schumer and Pelosi that he’s got ’em by the short hairs. And a bit of rubbing it in.

McConnell is just trolling the Democrats. I don’t think he really expects to be in the Majority in 2023. The map heavily favors the Democrats, there are 5 GOP retirements so far, and Roe will probably be reversed 4 months before the election – which will shock and motivate affluent suburban voters to swing to the Democrats.

And anyway, Breyer could stay on another year and still be able to retire in time for The Senile One to nominate and confirm a replacement. The real risk for the Democrats is – will The Senile One still be alive a year from now?