president fill the seat. we get the reaction in a moment, but, first, senate majority leader mcconnell gyps me from louisville. a half ofs do senators is said they will meet with merrick garland and late this week, illinois senator kirk said "just man up and cast a vote." it has been only four days and it seems line your ranks are breaking, sir. >> well, senator kirk is a trick senator running for re-election this year and he is going to be re-elected in november. what we need to focus on is the principle, the principle, who ought to make the appointment? you have to go back 80 years to find the last time a vacancy created in an election year was filled, become to 1888 when cleveland was in the white house to find the last time when a vacancy was created in a presidential area a senate controlled by the party honest the party confirmed. the senate has a relative to play here. the president nominates, we decide to confirm. we thing the important principle in the middle of...
because in a sense you are a lame duck congress? >> no, you should not. we are following the paiden rule, when three was change of the jack jack in 1992, presidential election year, he said the senate should not act on filling a supreme court vacancy if it had occurred that year. harry reid when he was become if 2005 said the president nominates but the senate accident have to vote. chuck schumer, the next democratic leader said they would not confirm, the democrats were in the majority in the senate and they would not confirm a bush appointment to the supreme court if one occurred 18 months of a presidential election. all we are doing, chris, is following a long-standing tradition of not filling vacancies on the supreme court in the middle of a presidential
Fetching more results