Tester calls for Garland hearing

After a brief meeting with U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland Thursday, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., is calling on his Republican colleagues to meet with and schedule a confirmation hearing for him.

Garland, chief justice on the U.S Court of Appeals for the District Columbia, was picked by President

Barack Obama in March to fill the vacancy on the court created by the death of associate Justice Antonin Scalia in February.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has refused to schedule a hearing for Garland, arguing the next president should fill the vacancy.

Other Republicans, including Montana's other senator, Steve Daines, have echoed that line of thinking.

It's a point Tester said he very much disagrees with.

"He deserves to have a hearing. He deserves to be further vetted so that we can make a decision as to whether he is the right man for the Supreme Court," Tester said.

He said the refusal of Senate Republicans to give Garland a hearing, is an abdication of a core responsibility of the Senate as laid out in the constitution and is precedent setting.

"This is a new standard: not to hold a hearing and not have a vote on this guy," Tester said.

"It's political, but we still need to do our job as the Constitution says," he added.

During his 30- to 45-minute meeting with Garland, Tester said the two talked about campaign finance reform, second amendment rights and privacy.

But despite the meeting, Tester said, he has not decided whether he would vote for Garland to be seated on the court.

He said that he and his office are pouring through a 2,000-page questionnaire filled out by Garland to determine his fitness to be on the court, and there are more questions to be asked before he can make a decision.

But, Tester said, that is why the hearings are so crucial. They provide a chance for lawmakers as well as the media to scrutinize Garland's record.

"We need to have more than one set of eyes looking at him and it needs to be done in a public manner," Tester said.

Some Republicans have hinted that they would be willing to take up the Garland nomination, should likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton win the presidency in November.

"If we come to a point, I've said all along, where we're going to lose the election, or we lose the election in November, then we ought to approve him quickly," Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz, said during a May 8 "Meet The Press" interview, "because I'm certain that he'll be more conservative than a Hillary Clinton nomination comes January."

But even if Republicans did give Garland a hearing and a final vote after the November election, Tester said the damage has already been done.

"If they do that, look at how much time has been wasted and how much dysfunction has been created on a 4-4 Supreme Court," he said.