Should Donald Trump be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice who is likely to be called on to decide the fate of the investigations into Trump, possibly including whether Trump can pardon himself? Republican Sen. Pat Toomey doesn't see a problem with that:
“I think that is a ridiculous argument that is made as just an attempt to make way for their real position, which is that President Trump should never be able to confirm a vacancy.
“Look, I don’t remember hearing the Democrats making that argument when President Bill Clinton was in fact personally under investigation when a vacancy occurred.
“My understanding is that President Trump is not himself personally the subject of the investigation even. So, I think that is a non-argument. And we needn’t pay any attention to it.”
Donald Trump is a subject of the Mueller investigation. He is not a criminal target as of April, but that doesn’t mean he’s not the subject of the investigation. So Toomey has either spent a lot of time in recent months with his hands over his ears screaming “la la la I can’t hear you” or he’s lying.
As for the Clinton talking point, expect to hear it a great deal in coming weeks, but as Steve Benen points out, “when Bill Clinton filled Supreme Court vacancies in his first term, the investigation at the time was into a small Whitewater land deal in which he lost money.” There’s a wee bit of difference between that and the array of questions Trump faces, from collusion with Russia to obstruction of justice to whatever the Michael Cohen investigation is going to turn up.
Pat Toomey’s allegiance to Trump—or to the Federalist Society-approved judge Trump will nominate—is simply too blind to allow him to think about or care what it means to have Trump apply his litmus test of personal loyalty to a Supreme Court seat.