Senator Chuck Grassley was in damage control mode yesterday after letting it slip earlier in the week that his supposedly principled stand on the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy could change if fellow Republicans see a political advantage in confirming Judge Merrick Garland.

His efforts to salvage some credibility did not succeed.

Bret Hayworth covered Grassley’s appearance at the Sioux City Rotary Club on August 29, where two audience members asked about Garland’s nomination.

Grassley said there has been a well-accepted “understanding” in Senate since 1987 that no Supreme Court vacancies should be filled in the final year of a presidential term.

“It had nothing to do with Garland (personally),” Grassley said.

Grassley said the only way his stance could change is if a large number of senators strongly urged him to consider the nomination during a so-called “lame-duck session” of Congress, during the time after the Nov. 8 election and before the new Congress takes office in January.

Months ago, Grassley repeatedly ruled out any chance of holding hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee. For instance, in late March the Senate Judiciary Committee chair told reporters a lame-duck confirmation was out of the question:

“I can’t have one opinion saying the people ought to decide and then preempt that (depending on) whoever’s (elected) president – Hillary or Trump or Cruz or Kasich or anybody else. […] I’ve got to be consistent.”

From the day Obama nominated a not-very-liberal appeals court judge, I’ve believed Senate Republicans would hurry up and confirm Garland once they realized Hillary Clinton would become the next president. Several GOP senators have already said they favor moving Garland’s nomination during the lame-duck session, to prevent Clinton from choosing Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement.

Grassley’s comments in Sioux City were not a slip of the tongue. Later on August 29, a voter at a town-hall in Cherokee asked about a possible lame-duck confirmation. Grassley responded,

I myself could not do that, based upon the letter that we sent, that the new president should make that appointment. And 52 senators, a majority of the Senate, right now are of that same position. But if we have the election, and there was a majority of the Senate who changed their mind about doing it in lame duck as opposed to January 20, I don’t feel that I could stand in the way of that. But I don’t think I can promote that idea.

As Judiciary Committee chair, Grassley has the power to schedule or not schedule confirmation hearings. If he really believes, as he has claimed again and again, that the Senate must refuse to consider Garland’s nomination as a matter of principle, it should not matter how many of his colleagues change their minds.

“Let the people decide” was never a convincing fig leaf for blocking a Supreme Court nominee for a length of time unprecedented in modern history. It became even less tenable once Grassley admitted the Senate might confirm Garland anyway, if “the people” elected Clinton rather than Donald Trump.

After national media picked up on the flip-flop, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Patty Judge slammed Grassley’s new position in an August 31 statement:

Chuck Grassley has forgotten that it’s his job to listen to the people of Iowa, not his fellow Republican senators in Washington D.C. This admission by Chuck Grassley shows that he has changed. His unprecedented obstruction on the Supreme Court is nothing more than a partisan game and he’s finally being honest about that. This kind of doublespeak and political gibberish might work in Washington, but it certainly won’t work in Iowa.

Grassley’s Senate and campaign staff declined to respond to my requests for clarification this week, but the senator wasn’t able to ignore the issue at his public event in Anamosa on September 1. William Petroski reported for the Des Moines Register,

During a town hall meeting Thursday at the Jones County Courthouse, the first question from the crowd of about 100 people was from a woman who wondered if the Iowa Republican was changing his previously unswerving stance on the high court confirmation process. […]

Grassley told the woman that nothing has changed, but he said he shouldn’t have speculated on the matter in remarks Monday to the Sioux City Rotary Club. […]

“You know, they asked me to speculate, and I shouldn’t speculate because who knows what is going to happen after the election? My position has not changed. The new president should make the appointment,” Grassley told reporters Thursday after the Anamosa town hall meeting.

Grassley added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., controls the Senate’s agenda.

Nice try, but Grassley wasn’t just thinking out loud in Sioux City. He expressed the same position in Cherokee: he would not “stand in the way” if the majority of his colleagues see a political advantage of confirming Garland during the lame-duck session. And while McConnell has the final say on what votes come to the Senate floor, convening Judiciary Committee hearings will still be Grassley’s call, as long as he is the chair. Journalists and members of the public should continue to press Grassley on that point.

When Republicans gained control of the Senate, Grassley chose to lead Judiciary rather than the Finance or Budget committees. Confirming judges is one of that committee’s most important roles, but it wasn’t performing well in that area even before Scalia passed away.

This week wasn’t the last time Grassley will need to answer questions about a lame-duck confirmation scenario. The issue is sure to come up when the Senate candidates debate. Judge is pushing for four televised debates and has accepted invitations from the Des Moines Register/KCCI-TV in Des Moines, KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, KTIV-TV in Sioux City, and KWQC/Quad City Times in Davenport (possibly with Iowa Public Television’s participation). Grassley agreed last month to debate Judge twice at events “hosted by Iowa Public Television and WHO Radio.”

Any comments about the Supreme Court vacancy or Senate campaign are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Someone who attended the Jones County event on September 1 shared a video clip with me. Here’s the full response from Grassley after an audience member asked why he had changed his position on a lame-duck confirmation.

You know, somebody asked me to speculate, and I think it was at the Sioux City Rotary Club on–earlier this week at the Rotary Club. And I probably should not speculate, because it’s so far into the future. So, my position has not changed. On February 23, I and ten other members of the Judiciary Committee said to the other members of the Senate that we felt that following an understanding of the last 30 years, that, that when you have a vacancy in the last year of a presidency, that the people should have a voice for who[m] they elect as president, and the new president should make that appointment. That’s what the letter said, that’s still my position.