'Oh, come on': MSNBC host torpedoes Hugh Hewitt for claiming 'precedents matter' only in Kavanaugh nomination
Chris Jansing speaks to Hugh Hewitt (MSNBC/screen grab)

MSNBC host Chris Jansing on Monday called out conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt after he tried to claim that "precedents matter" in the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh -- even though Republicans ignored precedents when they refused to hold hearings for President Barack Obama's nominee.


During a discussion about the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, Jansing asked Hewitt what the next steps are for Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.

"I wouldn't be surprised to see [committee Chairman Chuck Grassley] say we're going to the vote on Thursday and have hearings after sending it to be available to every member to watch because that seems to me the way to thread the needle," Hewitt opined. "Hear her out and the judge and at the same time not allow the process to be held hostage to late hits."

Hewitt added: "We are setting a precedent here and that which gets rewarded, gets repeated. And the chairman is very, very aware of how precedents matter in this."

"Oh, come on," Jansing interrupted. "I mean, really, Hugh? Precedents matter? I mean, we could do another whole hour about the way that the Obama nominee [Merrick Garland] was treated and how he never got a hearing period. Because it was within a year of when Donald Trump [was on the ballot] -- so, I mean, to suggest precedent may be a bridge too far."

According to Hewitt, breaking precedent to prevent Obama nominee Merrick Garland from testifying is not the same as breaking precedent to allow Kavanaugh's accuser to testify before he gets a committee vote.

"No, actually, I think you can distinguish with the case with the exception to the rule a Supreme Court justice dies in election year," Hewitt insisted. "With regards to a nominee in the average amount of time -- setting aside Mr. Garland not receiving a hearing ever -- Judge Kavanaugh's been in the process more than the average nominee over the last six or seven, and a routine process until the late [accusations] and the precedent would be, do we have to stop every Supreme Court nomination hearing upon the arrival of a late breaking charge sat on? Because as was pointed out, Sen. Feinstein never shared this with Chuck Grassley."

"It is very much a late hit," he concluded. "Might be a legit hit but a very late hit and I think moving through the Judiciary Committee on Thursday is perfectly appropriate provided [the accuser] has a chance to speak to the country under oath before the final vote is taken."

Watch the video below from MSNBC.