Breakfast with a side of gridlock

So U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley and Judge Merrick Garland had breakfast together on Tuesday. It must have been somewhat awkward.

'Please pass the salt, Senator,” Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, might have said to Iowa's senator and chair of the Judiciary Committee.

'Not until the American people have spoken,” Grassley might have replied.

See, awkward.

But we really don't know what was said. We do know they met for roughly an hour in a private Senate dining room. We know, thanks to The New York Times, that Garland had eggs and toast, while Grassley ate oatmeal. We know, thanks to CNN, that Grassley dodged reporters afterward by retreating to his secret 'hideaway” nearby. I want a secret hideaway.

And we know the meeting changed nothing. Grassley says he won't hold a hearing on Garland's nomination. There will be no committee vote and no Senate vote. The Supreme Court will remain short one justice until sometime after the next president is sworn in. Sorry, Judge Garland, you're still toast.

But gridlock Grassley is also looking a tad singed these days. He took some heat during a recent series of town hall meetings back home. He conceded to Iowa Republicans over the weekend that his re-election campaign won't be the usual 'slam-dunk.”

Faced with sharp criticism he's picking partisan politics over his constitutional duty, he lashed out at Chief Justice John Roberts, blaming him for politicizing the court. Roberts said just before Justice Antonin Scalia's death that court picks have become too political and divisive, but Grassley says he and the other justices had better exercise their right to remain silent.

Blame Obama. Blame an election year. Blame the Biden rule, an excuse unearthed several days after Grassley and Senate leaders had already slammed the door. Blame the dog, who ate the nomination. Insist eight justices is enough.

'Full Grassley?” This is the 'full grasping.” Which straw will come next?

We must wait for the will of the people. Well, I've got news for you, the will of the people is not going to make Washington, D.C., a happy rainbow unicorn ranch. Given the short list of candidates in both parties who currently have the best chance of securing a nomination, the people are about to elect a president deeply disliked by wide swathes of the country, and perhaps even by people who grudgingly give them a vote. That president likely will face a Congress filled with folks who are keenly interested in making sure he or she is a one-termer, or less.

It's possible, probable even, that things will actually get worse. Again, where is my hideaway?

The nomination of Garland, a highly qualified consensus pick by a twice people-elected president, actually presented a chance to do one sane, reasonable thing before we move from frying pan to fire. It could have been a shred of welcome evidence that big stuff can still get done, that not everything has to be smashed to bits so one side can capture the wreckage.

But my senator won't allow it to happen. If only he would waffle.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com