Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, February 19, 2019

In more transparently anti-choice posturing, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley told supporters that his opposition to abortion is the real reason he won’t consider new Supreme Court nominees before the next president is in office.

Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and an avowed foe of abortion rights, has stubbornly refused to give President Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, a full hearing to ascertain his qualifications for the role.

“I can’t overstate the importance of what’s at stake here,” he said in a conference call with the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. “We know if another liberal is nominated to the court then even the reasonable restrictions on abortion that have been enacted into law — through the democratic process, I might say — these would be swept away.”

One case Grassley referred to on the call, Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld a Congressional ban on partial-birth abortions. John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas joined Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer dissenting. David Souter retired in 2009 and Stevens in 2010; they both were nominated by Republican presidents, Souter by George H.W. Bush in 1990 and Stevens by Gerald Ford in 1975.

Contraception and access to women’s health care — including abortion — have been the subject of major political and legal debate recently, and are expected to be on the Court’s docket next year, including notably the question of whether Texas’ new laws create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortions in the state, a question that the Court’s female justices seem to have have already addressed in oral arguments.

Grassley didn’t stop there, though. He also accused the media of distorting the judicial records of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and by insinuation, Garland, referring to “headlines at the time they were nominated” that depicted the judges as moderates.

“Well, we know how those four have turned out. So don’t believe what you read in the press about people’s basic philosophy, because they got it all wrong and probably intentionally all wrong.”

Photo: Chuck Grassley, anti-abortion foe, which means he won’t give Merrick Garland a fair hearing. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 794

16 responses to “Chuck Grassley Reveals The Real Reason He Won’t Give Merrick Garland A Hearing”

  1. angryspittle says:

    Will somebody tell this sonofabitch that abortion is fucking legal?

    • Bridgetjstockman2 says:

      “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc492ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc492:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsSportGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc492…….k.

    • Bill P says:

      Grassley also is claiming that if Garland were nominated (not confirmed) then even the reasonable restrictions on abortion that have been enacted into law — through the democratic process, I might say — these would be swept away.”” Being nominated doesn’t mean he is a member of the Supreme Court. Garland would still have to be confirmed by the Senate.

  2. charleo1 says:

    Why is this antiquated hack head of anything in gov.? Look, if we want gov. to work, and work it must, if the majority is to prosper in peace, and security. Officials such as Chuck Grassley being in powerful positions, first must become unacceptable.

  3. johninPCFL says:

    Great. Grassley finally admits that he’s a giant-government Nazi that wants a LEO in every doctor’s office listening to every conversation between a woman and her doctor. Can’t trust them wimmen, ya know!

  4. 1Zoe55 says:

    Grassley, another example of a wrinkled, past-it (if you know what I mean) old white guy who’s proud of being an avowed foe of abortion rights. Could we get a photo of Mrs. Grassley’s face? Why does this man think he can decide what rights other women have? If we women don’t kick these guys’ asses to the curb, they will continue their losing opposition to abortion rights. I’ve written this before but I will write it again. As a Catholic woman raised in a Catholic area, there will always be abortions–legal or not. One last thought, why doesn’t Grassley endorse free birth control methods and education?

  5. CrankyToo says:

    Hey Grassley, you’re a dumba$$, and you clearly have no idea what the word “moderate” means. Do something patriotic: STFU and go home!

  6. Böcker says:

    Any chance this old goat will be voted out in november?? If not he should be.

  7. Charles Winter says:

    By “reasonable abortion restrictions,” he means laws that make it almost impossible for poor women to get abortions, but pose only minor problems to rich women.

  8. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    Grassley ONLY mentions women? So let me guess..this old fart’s ball are pinched so tight that the sight of any successful woman makes his balls pure torture?

  9. oldfed says:

    Unfortunately Barak’s SC appointments have been a disaster its a collection of IDIOTS who have never even read the constitution

    • Daniel Max Ketter isoldfed says:

      But you’re dan m ketter, a military draft dodger from Williamsburg VA who competed but couldn’t get hired for a civil service job, or even the private sector until his little brother got him on Ford Motors payroll non-competitively with a 0-accountability parts clerk job. Do you plan to pay back the tax payers for your 7 years of welfare when you couldn’t get a job? Make our check payable to the United States Treasury.

  10. COMALite J says:

    There may be another reason as well: Grassley is a Birther. As such, he doesn’t even believe that Obama is legitimately the President of the USA, and thus has no call appointing anyone to anything, let alone justices to the Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.