Why Merrick Garland Will Not Get A Confirmation Hearing
By 
Despite massive pressure from Democrats, Grassley is sticking steadfastly to his vow not to hold hearings or a confirmation vote on Garland before November’s elections, arguing that voters deserve to pick the person who will nominate the next high-court justice. As chairman of the Judiciary panel that considers Supreme Court nominations, Grassley is largely responsible for deciding whether to hold confirmation hearings.
So far, most of his GOP colleagues support his unwavering stance — only two, Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Susan Collins (Maine), favor hearings. Even if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) never budges on hearings, Grassley could theoretically change his mind and advocate for them.
For Grassley, 82, the political calculus is pretty simple: He’d much rather take heat from Democrats than Republicans in a wildly unpredictable election year in which Donald Trump may top the ballot in this swing state. Conservatives have posed a problem for Grassley in the past. Six years ago, when he was last up for reelection, he faced an uprising from the right for trying to craft a bipartisan health-care plan with then-Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
The vast majority of the Republican conference, including the leadership, has much more to fear from the primary electorate than the general one, and the primary electorate is also much more likely to care about issues like Supreme Court confirmations than the dwindling number of general election swing voters. How many Senate Republicans are willing to put their jobs on the line to avoid the downside risk of a marginally more liberal Supreme Court nominee? The answer is “not enough.”
It’s also worth noting that this dynamic if anything gets worse after the election, which is why Grassley is writing op-eds about how an 8-member Supreme Court is not a big deal. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, it will be enormously difficult for a Democratic president to get anyone confirmed. Who are the Senate Republicans willing to take on a huge political liability so that unresolved circuit splits can be turned into 5-4 liberal victories, exactly?