washington <u+2014> senator jeff flake was startled a few months ago when a constituent pressed him on whether he was willing to hold up any supreme court nominee chosen by hillary clinton if she was elected president. <u+201c>i asked for how long, and he said for four years,<u+201d> mr. flake, an arizona republican, recounted in an interview. <u+201c>i said no, of course not. that is not what i came to washington to do.<u+201d> but that<u+2019>s precisely what some of his republican colleagues are considering. having already blocked president obama<u+2019>s nominee to replace justice antonin scalia since march, they contend that republicans should indefinitely stall any nomination by mrs. clinton to prevent an ideological shift in the court. such a blockade would represent a major escalation in the judicial wars that have been waged in the senate since the 1980s. mr. flake and other republicans say that would be a terrible mistake. <u+201c>you just can<u+2019>t do that,<u+201d> mr. flake said. <u+201c>you shouldn<u+2019>t and you can<u+2019>t. people expect to have a full court.<u+201d> but if mrs. clinton prevails and republicans hold the senate, they are likely to come under immense pressure from conservative groups to do whatever is necessary to prevent her from filling seats on the court, considered by many republicans as their last defense against the advance of liberal social and governmental policy. the idea of denying mrs. clinton a court pick has been quietly simmering in conservative circles as republicans held firm in their refusal to take up the president<u+2019>s nomination of merrick b. garland before the election. it burst into the open in recent weeks after senator john mccain, the arizona republican who formerly tried to defuse judicial clashes, said that republicans would stand united against any nominee chosen by mrs. clinton. senator ted cruz of texas followed that up with comments pointing to a precedent for extended vacancies on the court. this week, senator richard m. burr of north carolina, who is in a tough re-election fight, was heard on a recording obtained by cnn promising to <u+201c>do everything i can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the supreme court.<u+201d> the comments were a significant departure from the republican party <u+2019>s public position that the court seat was being held open only to give voters a say in the choice through the election of a new president. senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky, the majority leader, has said repeatedly that filling the court vacancy should be left to the next president, not mr. obama. senator susan collins of maine, who has met with judge garland and believes the party should have taken up his nomination, said pre-election tension could be playing a role in prompting the explosive comments. <u+201c>emotions are running really high now at this stage of the most bizarre presidential election of my lifetime,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>after the election, i believe there will be a reassessment of how we should approach judicial nominees.<u+201d> ms. collins, who was part of the so-called gang of 14 that in 2005 struck a deal that judges should not be blocked except under extraordinary circumstances, said the senate should return to that standard. <u+201c>i certainly understand that the court has become much more ideological than is desirable for that institution, and that is why there are those who have taken what i believe to be an untenable view,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>we don<u+2019>t even know who her supreme court nominees are going to be, so how could we possibly draw a line in the sand? i certainly hope we don<u+2019>t go down that route.<u+201d> other senators with influence on judicial matters have sought to stave off the idea of a running blockade. senator lindsey graham, a south carolina republican who sits on the judiciary committee, joined in resisting hearings for judge garland, but he told me months ago that he had already warned his colleagues that he would be ready to back a nominee by mrs. clinton as long as the choice was qualified. and senator charles e. grassley of iowa, the judiciary committee chairman who has been pummeled by democrats for refusing to set hearings on judge garland, indicated recently that he intended to act on the new president<u+2019>s supreme court nomination. <u+201c>if that new president happens to be hillary, we can<u+2019>t just simply stonewall,<u+201d> he told a group of radio reporters. if democrats win the senate and mrs. clinton becomes president, republicans could try to block a nomination through a filibuster . but both parties fully expect that democrats would quickly take procedural steps to deny republicans the ability to do so, just as they did in 2013 when they lowered the threshold for breaking filibusters against most judicial nominees from 60 votes to a simple majority. the supreme court was not included in that change because some senior democrats feared the decision might backfire if it left them unable to block a future conservative choice they opposed. but after the republican treatment of judge garland, democrats would have little reluctance to force through the change now if republicans carried out a supreme court filibuster. of course, this all becomes moot if donald j. trump is elected president and republicans hold the senate. then it will be democrats searching for ways to hold up mr. trump<u+2019>s court choices. find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via facebook , twitter and the first draft newsletter . a version of this article appears in print on november 4, 2016, on page a19 of the new york edition with the headline: a supreme court stonewall may not crumble anytime soon. order reprints | today's paper | subscribe
that supreme court stonewall may not crumble anytime soon
carl hulse