President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) J. Sonnenberg (R) Lauren Boebert (R) Ted Harvey

15% 10%↓ 10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Doug Bruce

(R) Bob Gardner




CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 28, 2018 02:27 PM UTC

Surprise! Gardner Flip Flops on SCOTUS Nomination

  • by: Colorado Pols
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma)

This is what Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) said on March 16, 2016 when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court:

“We stand at a pivotal point in our nation’s history. The Obama Administration continues to use the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, shifting the balance of power that our Founders established…Our next election is too soon and the stakes are too high; the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.”

Now, this is what Gardner said THIS MORNING on KOA radio in response to a question about approving a new Supreme Court nominee before the November 2018 election:

I think it’s absolutely critical for this court. This is an opportunity to have a full court going into the new session — the start of the session. There’s plenty of time to do this. And so I hope that we can have a process that gets back to what it used to look like in the Senate, where you have Republicans and Democrats working together to find somebody who’s right for the country.

You can probably guess where this is headed. In a follow-up question, KOA radio host Marty Lentz asked Gardner why this SCOTUS nomination should be quickly advanced when Gardner absolutely refused to allow Garland’s nomination to go forward two years ago:

I think if you look at that situation, a completely different situation than what we have now where, you know, according to the Biden rule and others. This is not a presidential election year. This is not months away from the American people determining a new president that could influence the direction of the court. We’re not even halfway through the president’s first first term, so I think we’re talking a totally different situation, there, and an opportunity for us to put somebody on the court like Neil Gorsuch. Neil Gorsuch as a great Coloradan and [I am] looking forward to somebody like him — or her — and go onto the court.

Of course Gardner says that this is a “completely different” situation, because…well…mostly because there is now a Republican in the White House. Gardner has the moral leadership of a turnip.


26 thoughts on “Surprise! Gardner Flip Flops on SCOTUS Nomination

  1. Because this was Gardner on why it was ok to hold up Garland:

    “Now, President Obama has to make a decision. He can either propose a nominee who can win over the majority in the Senate, or defer his choice to the voters, who in November will elect a new President and a new Senate, which will be responsible for confirming a nominee who will provide balance to the Supreme Court.

  2. Power Politics. It eats Liberals for lunch.

    If you are playing power politics, nobody cares that you are a hypocrite. Well nobody but "moderates", the Democratic Party establishment and both-siderist pundits.

    The religious right certainly doesn't care that Trump lives an anti-"Christian" lifestyle. They only care that he delivers an anti-abortion Court.


    1. Obstructing, hmm, let's see — oh yeah:

      Mr. McConnell laid the groundwork for the right-wing insurgency of 2009 and 2010 in another way, too, with his decision to withhold Republican support for any major Democratic initiatives in the Obama years. 

      But Mr. McConnell, prioritizing elections over policy, calculated that by blocking or delaying Democratic legislation, above all through aggressive use of the filibuster, Republicans would create a tedious gridlock that voters would blame the Democrats for. After all, weren’t they the ones in power?

      Now your party is in power, merrily abusing it to the detriment of our economy, freedom and health (as Park Hill correctly notes in another thread).  Trump's malevolent incompetence is coming home to roost, and you'll be the last to know it.  When more farmers go bankrupt, factories in Middle America start laying off workers and moving jobs overseas due to the tariffs, hitting Red states the hardest, the Republican Party will be an obscene word in the minds of millions of voters.

      While else the rush to jam thru any RWNJ Joe Blow into the SCOTUS?  Because you know you're going to get your asses handed to you in November.

      1. Didn't American soldiers obstruct Hitler –like my father in law, a Normandy combat engineer?  When you face pure evil, like Trump, decent people do obstruct.

    2. Hell yes we're obstructing, Moddy.  Based on what your disgusting excuse for a Senate Majority leader did after Scalia thankfully dropped dead, this is absolutely consistent with the rules according to Bitch McConnell.  Since the appointment of an Article III judge, in this case a justice of the Supreme Court, requires concerted action by both the executive branch (the nomination) and the legislative branch (the Senate exercising its constitutional power and duty to advise and consent), there should be no action by either branch until after the mid-term elections, so that the American people can have a say in electing the next 35 Senators in 2018.  It's totally different only if you have your head up your ass.  Which you do.  Perpetually.  Sorry fascist

    3. Moderapist, do you agree that the citizenry has the God-given right to exercise Second Amendment remedies upon determining that their national government is becoming tyrannical?

  3. At least we can take comfort in knowing that if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee from President Trump (or Pence) in 2020, a presidential election year, if anyone passes away or retires. They will be true to their principals and allow the American people an opportunity to elect a Democratic President and Senate, before any nominees are even considered.

  4. This President, under a cloud because his campaign (and personal treasury) was riddled with Russian dollars and dealings, should be considered as though he might not be there for long. The Senate is up for election, and Republicans will never have a better map for retaining their majority. They should be proud to maintain their new position on SCOTUS nominees.

    Or we can just admit, as McConnell himself did, that it was never about some "rule" – it was just McConnell being proactive and making his ever-more-radical caucus (also up for election at the time) happy.

    1. Cory Booker said the same about The Yam packing SCOTUS while he's under investigation. Of course he's going to try to apply a loyalty test to anyone he nominates. He wants someone who will side with him on any matter that arises from Meuller's investigation.

  5. We know Cory is a hypocritical simpleton. What is Bennet doing? Has he wet  his pants over this? Surely CPols will keep apprised of his Monumental Pronouncements. 

    And where will we place his statue?

    1. Hey Z. Please drip the Bennet obsession this electoral season. You'll have a chance to primary him later. 

      Meanwhile contribute usefully and persuasively, and maybe you will build up your street cred. 

      1. His street cred is long gone. And it's not ideological because he gives a pass to others who are less left wing than Bennet. He has some kind of personal peeve about Bennet.

        1. You and Zap are peas in a pod. You each have your obsessions – yours is Jill Stein Voters, his is Michael Bennet. Both are one-dimensional super-villains to blame for every political woe we face. 

          Other than your obsessions, each of you sometimes has interesting ideas to contribute and articles to point to. 

          You are each chasing your white whales – his from port, you from starboard.

          Call me Ishmael.


  6. Morning Joe and crew were discussing "Neutralizing the Nuclear Option," which dusts off FDR's court-packing scheme and suggests the Dems implement it in 2021 if they win the House,Senate and presidency. In 1938, it flopped because the parties were not as ideologically extreme as today. This time it might work.

    On this one particularly issue, and at the risk of sounding like Zappy, the Dems should do it if only to correct what was done to Merrick Garland. McConnell changed one rule. Schumer can change another. Or two. (He will probably need to create an exception to the filibuster rule for legislation affecting the number of justices. Like reconciliation for budget issues.)

    This way we are only stuck with this court for 3 years rather than 30 years.

  7. Packing the court in 2021 is a reasonable response to the theft of Garland's seat.   Fitst, we need to win the presidency and both houses of Congress , though.

  8. Always, always. always follow the money. 

    Justice Kennedy’s son (Justin Kennedy) has been “one of Mr. Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche Bank”

    In 2017 Deutsche was fined for $10 billion Russian money-laundering —in January Trump waived fines.

    1. Where are we supposed to follow the money? Through a time warp?

      Trump's relationship with Deutsche Bank began in the late 1990s. Kennedy's son was on the commercial lending side and made some loans — which went bad in 2008, triggered a dispute between Trump & DB commercial real estate division, which were eventually settled.

      Trump's biggest loans (and his more current ones) came from the private banking side of DB. Justin Kennedy was not a part of those deals. He had left DB for other work — I can't find exact dates, but he was with another firm in October, 2010.

      1. Here's a Financial Times article from last August that spells out the relationships in more detail. 

        Some of the appointments gave Deutsche more clout in boardrooms and on the party circuit. Tobin “Toby” Cobb, formerly of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, is the son of two US ambassadors. Justin Kennedy, a trader who arrived from Goldman to become one of Mr Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche, is the son of a Supreme Court justice. Mr Cobb, Mr Kennedy, Mr Stuart and Mr Offit could not be reached for comment. Through a spokesperson, Mr Schwartz and Mr Vaccaro declined to comment.

      2. JohnInDenver — as Michael pointed out in the New York Times article, the close ties between Trump and Kennedy are very, very current, even if the loans have long turned to lead:

        But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.

        “Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”

        Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

        During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.

      3. As I posted elsewhere, the firm Kennedy left for was LNR – which shortly after he arrived bailed out Jared Kushner's company from it's horrid 666 5th Ave investment. (The same property that was once again rescued for the Kushners this year – this time by a Canadian firm whose largestvstakeholder is Qatar. Hmm…)

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

23 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!