Inside the GOP hive mind on replacing Antonin Scalia

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

"Obama has the right to veto bills for any reason or no reason, and the Senate has the right to veto all his nominees. Checks & balances 101." — Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist

On Saturday, immediately after news broke about the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) convened an emergency strategy meeting with leading Republicans. The question on the table was how to respond to the likelihood that President Obama would soon nominate a successor to Scalia who would shift the balance of the court in a liberal direction. What follows is a heavily edited transcript of the ensuing conversation.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): Thanks to everyone for coming in so quickly on a Saturday. As I'm sure you can understand, speed is crucial here. We have a presidential debate coming up tonight, and our folks need to know where we stand. So, let's dispense with the whole moment-of-silence thing and just get down to business.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): I'd just like to say that I don't quite see why we're here. These things unfold in a certain way. Scalia dies. We express sadness and extend condolences to his family. We offer tributes. Then the president nominates someone to fill Scalia's seat. We put the nominee through the wringer for weeks, and if we don't like what we hear, we reject. Otherwise, we confirm. So what are we supposed to be talking about?

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus: Yes, I think that's right.

McConnell: Wow, that's really charming, Senator RINO. Very civil and proper. Hard to see how your presidential campaign got stuck below 2 percent in the polls. Since you seem a little naïve, let me explain something to you: The Democrats played hardball with Bob Bork. They quashed Miguel Estrada. Then Harry Reid chose the nuclear option by blocking filibusters on most judicial nominations. I just think we need to consider pushing back for a change. Are we going to let Obama reshape the Supreme Court in his own progressive image?

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine): Frankly, I don't think we have a choice. Sure, we could warn him to pick someone acceptable to the Republican majority, and we could agree to reject a flaming liberal. But he already knew we'd do that. So with Lindsey, I'd really like to know what you're suggesting, Mitch?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): I have an idea.

McConnell: I knew you would, Ted.

Cruz: We're thinking about this the wrong way. Think: government shutdown.

McConnell: Oh jeez, Ted, why are you bringing that up again? It's still a sore point for a lot of us. And this isn't about the budget.

Cruz: No, listen: You wusses thought I was crazy to shut down the government over Obama's budget. But really, it wasn't hard. The system allows that kind of thing. Congress controls the purse strings, so we can pull 'em closed and tie 'em up in a big ol' constrictor knot any time we want. Who says we need to defer to the president's agenda? We're the people's representatives!

Priebus: I think Ted is right about that.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): I'm with Reince.

McConnell: What are you getting at Ted?

Cruz: My point is this: Why do we need to accept anyone?

McConnell: Well, don't we need a reason to reject?

Cruz: Why? It's nice when the president gives a reason for vetoing a bill. But he doesn't have to, does he? The Constitution just gives him the power to veto. Well, it also gives us in the Senate the power not to approve judicial nominees. We don't have to give a reason. We can reject any and all of Obama's picks if we want to. There's no need to limit it to "liberal" picks. We all know that anyone Obama chooses will be too liberal for us! So let's just stop him in his tracks. We have that power. It's Checks and Balances 101.

Priebus: Ted has a point there, I think.

Rubio: I guess that's true.

Cruz: Thanks, Marco. And don't worry, I won't let on in the debate that you backed me up. It'll be our little secret.

Collins: Wait a minute here. Doesn't that open us up to the charge of being unprincipled obstructionists? And let's be honest: Wouldn't the charge be true? It's one thing to reject a nominee who's too far to the left. But to just issue a blanket statement that we won't even consider any nomination from the sitting president — isn't that just an exercise of raw senatorial power?

Priebus: Susan might have a point there.

Rubio: Yeah.

Cruz: Look, Susan, I get it. You're from the Northeast, where even Republicans feel the need to prove they're progressive. But just read the Constitution. It really is that simple. We get the power of "advise and consent" on nominations to the Supreme Court. That means we can do anything we want. The Constitution doesn't say we need to roll over and let the president ram it down our throats. That doesn't have to be our fate, just because a great man couldn't hang on for another nine months. That's just arbitrary.

Collins (muttering under her breath): Oh, give it a rest, Ted.

Cruz: What was that, Susan?

Collins: Nothing. I just said, 'Oh, you're the best, Ted.'

Cruz: I thought so.

Priebus: Let me just say that you've given me a lot to think about.

Rubio: Me, too.

Cruz: What's the matter, Marco — no line in your stump speech to quote for us on the subject?

Rubio: You know, you don't have to be such a jerk all the time, Ted. And actually, I do have something to say. It occurs to me that if someone like, well, me ends up winning in November, and, let's say hypothetically, we end up with a Democrat Congress…

McConnell (interrupting): Hey Marco, knock it off! You're not allowed to talk like that in here! You trying to jinx us?

Rubio: Sorry. But just hear me out. If somehow we get a Democrat Congress, then couldn't the Republican president just veto everything? With no explanation? I mean, I've read the Constitution, too. And let me tell you, Ted is right. It doesn't say we need to justify anything. Or even govern, really. It just says that the president has the power to veto bills passed by Congress. And we all know there's no way that the Democrats will win enough seats to override the veto. So shouldn't we just assume going forward that no true conservative president will ever sign any bill passed by a Democrat Congress?

Cruz: Marco, you're finally getting the hang of this! Welcome at long last to the True Conservative Club!

Rubio: Hey, wait a…

McConnell: Okay, boys. Pipe down. This has been very useful. But I have some thoughts. I see where you're coming from, Ted. And technically, you're right. We don't need to take up anyone Obama sends here for consideration. Hell, we don't even have to pass a budget ever again. We could just say no. About everything. And just let the private sector pick up the slack. That makes sense going forward. But I'm concerned about the short term here. Obama's going to nominate someone. I really don't want to leave it up to chance. I want to draw a line in the sand on this. But can I really say no unconditionally? To everyone? With no explanation? I know, Ted, that technically I could do that, but I'm talking about the politics now. Don't I need a nobler-sounding reason than "because we can"?

Rubio: How about declaring that the American people deserve to have a say in such an important matter, and so we should wait until after the election?

Priebus: I like that.

Collins: Sorry to rain on your parade here, guys, but didn't the American people already get a say when they reelected Barack Obama back in 2012?

Priebus: Oh, snap!

Collins: Right? My point is that no one is going to buy that as a legitimate reason to withhold approval of any and all possible nominees by the duly elected president of the United States.

Priebus: I think she's got you there, Mitch.

Cruz: You people really don't get it, do you? Look, Susan is right, but for the wrong reason. If being a Republican means anything at all, it means standing on principle. And you don't justify a principle by talking about why we hold it, or by listing all the good consequences that follow from it. Because then we'd be tempted to dump the principle the minute the justifications no longer make sense, or as soon as we realize the consequences are terrible. That's the way a progressive thinks. But a conservative understands the importance of standing your ground and fighting just for its own stubborn sake. If we say that we'll consider confirming an Obama nominee for any reason at all, then we've placed ourselves on a slippery slope — and the next thing you know, we'll find ourselves compromising and making deals with Democrats, and maybe even governing. And that should be unacceptable to any genuine conservative.

Priebus: Damn, he's good.

McConnell: You know, Ted, all good points, as always. And I'm fine with all of us understanding, behind the scenes, that this is really what's going on here. But not everyone — especially not in the liberal media — appreciates obstinance and obstruction. So I think we need a fig leaf on what — let's face it — is a pretty bald-faced power grab. And like any good American, I think "democracy" works as well as anything. My assistant will work out the language, but the idea is that we need to wait until after the election so the American people can have a say.

Priebus: This is exciting.

Graham: And if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders wins the election? I suppose we'll back down and confirm the new Democratic president's liberal nominee then?

McConnell (laughing mischievously and winking at Cruz): Oh, one crisis at a time, Lindsey. One crisis at a time.