PA-Sen: Toomey Unconvinced by Garland After Meeting

Pat ToomeySenator Pat Toomey met with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland yesterday.

Sen. Toomey called Garland “impressive” “intelligent” as well as “likable and pleasant”. Nevertheless, it appears the Senator will never vote to confirm him.

According to Burgess Everett of Politico, Toomey is worried about the judge’s views on executive power.

“We talked about concerns I have about his record and his judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, for me, throughout the process of this discussion, he did not assuage my concerns,” Toomey stated. “I’m not convinced that he would be willing to play the role of a sufficiently aggressive check on an administration.”

“We are in the midst of a very vigorous presidential election campaign right now. And the decision as to who will replace Justice Scalia is going to affect the balance on the court for perhaps a generation,” Toomey concluded. “The best decision is for the American people is to have some say in this.”

From the beginning, Toomey has been against any confirmation although now he appears to be shifting from the principle to the individual.

April 13th, 2016 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Senate, Top Stories | 20 Comments

20 thoughts on “PA-Sen: Toomey Unconvinced by Garland After Meeting”

  1. Biggie Smalls says:

    Toomey is a dope. Go back in history and look at Scalia’s own record in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel when he worked for President Ford. His main role was to expand and vigorously defend executive power. Another say anything, phony politician.

  2. HaHaHa says:

    I hope Hillary appoints someone MUCH more liberal.

  3. Josh says:

    Toomey would have so many qualifications himself for interviewing a Supreme Court Justice.. Pat Toomey worked for Chemical Bank on Wall Street exchanging Currency, worked for a London Bank selling derivatives, worked for a Chinese Billionaire in the derivatives market, and was a lobbyist and President of The Club for Growth. I really don’t believe Toomey would support any Supreme Court Candidate that the Koch Brothers and Special Interests didn’t give their support to. Unconvinced Toomey is a lackey of those special interests. Do you believe he has $10,000,000 in his campaign fund because average Americans like him. Toomey needs to go and be replaced by someone who will represent all the people of Pennsylvania.

  4. Observant says:

    Was it Mitch McConnell’s mouth moving or Chuck Grassley’s when Toomey spoke? when is he going to start representing the people of Pennsylvania’s interests rather than serving his Washington and Tea Party and Club for Growth masters? Can’t wait for November! Vote Sestak!

  5. Linda Christman says:

    Well you could knock me over with a feather! What a surprise: Toomey finds Merrick Garland to be unqualified.

  6. Reasonable Rep says:

    Isn’t gulagPittsburgh the guy who had one of those GoFundMe pages, begging for money online?

    Maybe he shouldn’t throw the “loser” word around so loosely.

  7. gulagPittsburgh says:

    Toomey is a LOSER. No need to convince him of anything. Besides, Toomey is following orders to oppose any Obama pick.

  8. Zakrey Bissell says:

    That’s very odd for not confirming him is to be the next judge in the US Court.

  9. HaHaHa says:

    Active — then vote for ANYONE but the garden gnome.

    One-Term-Toomey is a pathetic, TEA-guzzling loser.

  10. David Diano says:

    Toomey said:
    “I’m not convinced that he would be willing to play the role of a sufficiently aggressive check on an administration.”

    TRANSLATION:

    I’m afraid that Garland would be an aggressive check on Congress.

  11. PoliticallyActive says:

    Senator Toomey is more than welcome to vote no on Garland, but he should at least be calling for hearings so that he can bring his concerns to the entire Senate. When will PA get a senator with personality and charisma that has national profile and impact? I suppose a senator who does his or her job would be a step forward.

  12. Tim Brennan says:

    This is complete nonsense. This is a 60 y/o moderate pick for the court. Politicizing the court is unacceptable. This is a continuation of the zero sum politics that has taken over, all involved should be ashamed.

  13. Reasonable Rep says:

    CentPADem –

    Don’t let facts get in the way of your long discredited fantasty.

    “In 2001, a consortium of news organizations, assisted by professional statisticians (NORC), examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting all the Florida ballots. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected. In each alternative way of recounting the rejected ballots, the number of additional votes for Gore was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush. Under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. Likewise, if Florida’s 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.”

  14. Passing Through says:

    He knows that the only ones complaining wouldn’t vote for him anyway. But if he didn’t hold the line on this easy one, his base would not show up.

  15. PhillyPolitico says:

    Question: Did Toomey have this statement written before he met with Garland, or did he have to make changes?

  16. CentPADem says:

    Yes, yes – ’tis much better to have the Supreme Court of the land deciding who will be president – SEE Bush v Gore. Think of the different path of the last 16 years – Maybe no 9/11, definitely NO IRAQ WAR – Spank you very much Dick Cheney.

    My hope is they stall Garland, Clinton or Sanders gets elected and Ru Paul replaces Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

  17. Owned by Bibi Kochs Waltons and Sheldon says:

    Buh Bye Mr Toomey!

  18. Montco PA Dem says:

    We could have that discussion if the Senate leadership would simply hold hearings. But of course they’re being all apolitical about it.

  19. Reasonable Rep says:

    Looking forward to what I’m sure will be an apolitical, substantive discussion on Judge Garland’s philosophical approach to judging, as well as his viewpoints regarding certain provisions of our Constitution…

  20. HaHaHa says:

    LOL. The little garden gnome is unconvinced!!

Comments are closed.