Tom Cotton Went on Fox News to Make the Case for a Quick Supreme Court Nomination. It Went Poorly.

“You don’t see any hypocrisy between that position then and this position now?”

Win McNamee/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Four years ago, after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican senator after Republican senator made floor speeches, issued press releases, and went live on air to argue that in an election year, the American people deserved a chance to weigh in on the next Supreme Court nominee by first choosing their next president.

Now those chickens are coming home to roost.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace grilled Sen. Tom Cotton after the Arkansas Republican said the Senate “will move forward without delay” to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee, who may be announced as soon as next week. Mid-interview, Wallace played back a 2016 clip of Cotton defending the Senate for refusing to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, Merrick Garland. “Why would we cut off the national debate about this next justice?” Cotton asked in the clip. “Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court?”

“If it was wrong then, nine months before the election, why is it okay now, six weeks before the election?” Wallace asked.

In response, Cotton argued that election results in 2018 gave Senate Republicans a “mandate” to do, well, whatever the hell they want: “In 2014, the American people elected a Republican majority of the Senate to put the brakes on President Obama’s judicial nominations,” he said. “In 2018, we had a referendum on this question—just a month before the 2018 midterms, we had the vote on Justice Kavanaugh. There could not have been a clearer mandate, because the American people didn’t just elect Republicans, they expanded our majority. They defeated four Democratic senators who voted against Justice Kavanaugh. They reelected the one Democratic senator who did vote for Justice Kavanaugh.”

Then Cotton went a step further, claiming that it was a matter of “constitutional duty” to both block Garland in 2016 and confirm a Trump nominee now: “We have a clear mandate to perform our constitutional duty. That’s what the Senate majority will do now. That’s what we did back in 2016, as well.”

“You don’t see any hypocrisy between that position then and this position now?” Wallace asked.

“The Senate majority is performing a constitutional duty,” Cotton repeated, “and fulfilling the mandate the voters gave us in 2016 and especially in 2018.”

It remains to be seen whether accusations of hypocrisy will have any measurable effect on Senate Republicans’ actions now. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said yesterday the Senate should wait for the election winner to pick Ginsburg’s replacement; on Sunday, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she would not vote to confirm a nominee before Election Day. Since Ginsburg’s death Thursday night, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been urging other fence-sitters to “keep their powder dry” and offering justifications —and potential talking points—for why the situation with Ginsburg’s seat is actually, really, not at all like situation with Garland.

For those keeping score, though, be sure to read my colleague Tim Murphy’s long (but not comprehensive) list of GOP senators who, like Cotton, said a Supreme Court nominee shouldn’t be confirmed in an election year.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate