Sen. Sessions: Up-Or-Down Vote on Obama Nominee ‘Very Likely,’ But Confirmation by August Probably Not ‘Feasible’

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: On ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” today, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said it’s “very likely” that Republicans will allow an up-or-down vote on President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court — though he wouldn’t entirely rule out the possibility of a filibuster. Asked whether the White House can count on a vote on its nominee on the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said: “Oh, I think so. Yes, I think that’s very likely and it would take an extraordinary event to be in a position where a nominee couldn’t get an up-or-down vote. I mean, I can’t exclude it from every possibility, but it’d be unlikely.” Sessions, however, expressed concern about whether it will be possible to confirm a nominee before the summer congressional recess begins August 10 — a timeframe that’s being eyed by Democrats — since the president hasn’t made a nomination yet. “I really don’t think that’s feasible, and I think that would be rushing it,” Sessions said. “Justice [David] Souter gave us plenty of time [in announcing his retirement]. The president’s had a good bit of time to select his nominee; he probably already had thought about it, and he hasn’t submitted that yet. The real date is Oct. 1 when the court, the new court takes its seats and that Souter won’t be there. He will be on the court until Oct. 1. So that would be a realistic goal. I think all of us in Congress ought to work with the president to meet that deadline, for sure.” Sessions said he is “hearing” that a nomination is likely to come down next week. Though he declined to comment on specific nominees, he acknowledged a potential concern about the availability of documents related to Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s service in the Clinton administration. Kagan was an associate White House counsel under President Bill Clinton, and papers from her time in the administration are mostly uncatalogued, and are unavailable to the public at this time. “Our Democratic colleagues over the years have been very, very vigorous in establishing a broad authority to ask for those kind of documents, but specifically I would not say” it would be a problem,” Sessions said. “But the nominees should be given great scrutiny because they’re going to have a lifetime appointment. We can’t even dock their pay — they’re going to be there as long as they choose to sit and are able to sit. And we need to know that they’ll be faithful to the law, that they’re understanding of the role of a judge is one compatible with our great history of that neutral umpire, and they need to have some experience . . . at least to have some experience in demonstrating that they know how to conduct the office that they’re about to undertake. So those are some of the things that we’ll be questioning for sure.” Sessions added that he hopes the confirmation process does not take on political overtones, with either side raising money off of a fight. “I think the American people are going to observe this situation, and they may find that the nominee put forth is not a good one, and their only recourse is to have a different president who would appoint a different kind of nominee. So it is political in that sense, but not for us in Congress — we should focus on the merits of the matter. I hope we’ll have the best hearings we’ve ever had.” Asked whether he would raise money off of the nomination battle, he responded: “No, I don’t expect to — I never thought about that.” Click HERE to watch the interview with Sen. Jeff Sessions. We also chatted with Jonathan Martin, of Politico, about this huge day in politics, featuring the “romp in the swamp” between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney. Click HERE to watch our interview with Jonathan Martin. UPDATE: After the show aired, a Democrat got in touch to make two interesting points that provide context. First, on timeline issue: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated on June 14, 1993, and confirmed on August 3, 1993 — so there’s some precedent for action inside the timeframe Sessions references. And secondly, the issue of documents from White House files came up during Chief Justice John Roberts’ confirmation process, in 2005. At the time, Republicans backed up the Bush White House in arguing that memos from Roberts’ time in the solicitor general’s office should not be turned over to Congress and the public. “If you have documents that are private, that are on behalf of a client while they are privileged,” Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said in July 2005. “I think it violates the attorney/client privilege,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that same month, on ABC’s “This Week.” “It’s obvious that the president was Judge Roberts’ client, and if we’re going to set a precedent that those communications between someone who works for the president, the president of the United States are someday going to be made public, I think it could have a real chilling effect on the kind of candor and communications that people would have with the president.”