Gambling away the Supreme Court -- admitted to by Republican Chair of Judiciary Committee

They've all sunk into the muck of politics and obstruction so deep and for so long that they don't even think about cleaning up their language when they speak in public.   Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the one chiefly responsible for obstructing the processing of President Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy.

Sen. Grassley told a local Iowa radio host this week that "I would have to admit that it's a gamble."   He was referring to the possibility that, by waiting for the next president to make a nomination, he might get someone more liberal than the moderate Judge Merrick Garland.

It's now pretty clear that the next president will be either Hillary Clinton, who would definitely choose a more liberal nominee, or Donald Trump.   Who knows what a President Trump might do?    He has said he would ask for recommendations from the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative group.   But Trump has proven himself to be so unpredictable, and he is out of step with the Republican Party on many controversial social issues.  Asking for their recommendations doesn't mean he would take their advice.

However, what I wanted to call attention to is the language.    With all of the gravitas attached to the Supreme Court -- lifetime appointments, the final arbiter of constitutional questions that affect our lives, our economy, our freedoms -- to speak about "gambling" on a nomination for that august body is jaw-droppingly astounding.   Further, it starkly pegs Grassley as thinking politically, not what's good for the court and for the country.

Judge Garland seems to be a fine choice, although more moderate and centrist than I would wish for.   But he's certainly far less conservative than any Republican is likely to pick (except perhaps Trump).

The changed dynamics of the senate process, brought by the Trump ascendancy, might work in Judge Garland's and President Obama's favor, if Grassley's colleagues can convince him to go ahead with this nominee so as not to risk someone more liberal.    If they don't . . . well, then, we might wind up with a Clinton nominee that progressives will like even better.
 
Ralph