Sullivan creates new explanation for his 2016 Supreme Court 'principle' blocking nominee

If Sen. Dan Sullivan ever said that his 2016 "principle" blocking the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland was based on having a Democrat in the White House and Republican control of the Senate, as he now claims, I have found no record of it.

Back then he said that if Democrats controlled the Senate and the president had been a Republican, the Democrats would have stonewalled the nominee. But he didn’t say anything about that being an important principle of governing, as he now insists.

On Feb. 29, 2016, Sullivan told Alaska legislators it was essential to wait until after a new president was chosen eight months later before considering a Supreme Court nomination.

Sullivan said with the vacancy “literally in the throes of a presidential election, I think one of the most important things we can do is let the American people, and let the Alaskan people, decide. Because this election, it’s now becoming very clear in November. Yes, it’s gonna be about who controls the Senate. Yes, it’s gonna be about who controls the White House, but it’s also gonna be about the control of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is why this is such an important election.”

“The decision to withhold advancement of Mr. Garland's nomination isn't about the individual, it's about the principle,” Sullivan said in a March 16, 2016 press release.

"Alaskans, like all Americans, are in the midst of an important national election. The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come.”

"Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one,” Sullivan said in his press release.

In announcing the discovery of a brand new “principle” to advance a GOP nominee before the election, Sullivan has abandoned the central tenet of his old “principle,” which is that an election is near that will be about the control of the White House, the Senate and the Supreme Court and that the Senate should wait to see the election results.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has said she opposes bringing the Supreme Court nomination up before the election because the principle she announced in 2016 has not changed—the matter should not be brought up so close to an election.

On the Alaska Public Media program Talk of Alaska Tuesday, Sullivan tied himself in knots attempting to portray his current “principle” as identical to his old “principle.” It’s an excuse and he should admit that the new principle was fabricated to meet current conditions.

As a caller asked, “I’d like to know, how do you now justify so easily abandoning your principles?”

Sullivan said he appreciated the question.

“You know, my statement in 2016 if you look at it, emphasized that the future direction and I talked about direction twice, of the court, was at stake, and that was, for the election. That was cause we had a White House and Senate that were split politically in terms of political parties and had very different views of the direction in which the court was.

“We had a Senate majority that was Republicans and the White House which was Democrats, different parties. That was in 2016. And Americans and Alaskans in 2016, did make a choice on the direction of the court, by voting for a Republican president.

“And if you remember, in that election, the issue of the direction of the Supreme Court played a really, really important role in the 2016 election.

“The 2020 situation, as I mentioned, is very different, because now you have a Senate and the White House of the same party. So the principle and precedent, literally going back to the founding of the republic, is that when you have a Supreme Court opening during an election year, when the White House and Senate are of the same political party, the nomination almost always advances. We’ll see if it happens this time.

“And conversely, when you have a White House and Senate of different political parties, when there’s an election year and there’s an opening, if the nomination, almost never advances. That has literally been the principle and precedent since the founding of the republic.”

The two times that Sullivan mentioned “direction” in his 2016 press release were in these two sentences: “The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come. Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one.”

In 2020, the same conditions apply. The only thing that has changed is the alleged “principle,” which was never about principle at all, just a political calculation.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.

Comments? Write to me at dermotmcole@gmail.com