"If Hillary Clinton is president-elect then we should move forward with hearings in the lame duck," Jeff Flake said. | Getty Flake says it might be Garland time

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake has maintained for months that Republicans should take up Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination if it looks like the presidential contest is a lost cause for the GOP.

It's looking about that time, Flake said in an interview on Thursday.


"I said if we were in a position like we were in in '96 and we pretty much knew the outcome that we ought to move forward. But I think we passed that awhile ago," Flake said. "If Hillary Clinton is president-elect then we should move forward with hearings in the lame duck. That's what I'm encouraging my colleagues to do."

The political calculus is straightforward: Better to deal with Garland now and avoid swallowing a more liberal nominee from Hillary Clinton.

Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not explicitly say that he expects Clinton will win. But he all but admitted that Donald Trump — whom Flake opposes — is toast.

"I'm saying that I'm not one to deny polls, particularly when they are overwhelming," Flake said. And in the current crop of polls show a highly likely Clinton win, Flake said, "there is some accuracy there."

Flake's comments come as the Senate GOP weighs how to deal with a Clinton nomination to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has ruled out taking up Garland in the lame duck. But that raises the prospect that Clinton could pick someone other than Garland, whom Republicans once praised as a consensus nominee before rolling out a blockade intended to allow voters to weigh in before the vacancy is filled.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted earlier this week that the GOP will be unified against Clinton's court nominee, which he later walked back even as his office still maintained Clinton will likely select someone too liberal. McCain is up for reelection and must take a hard tack toward Clinton to make sure his opposition to Trump doesn't lose him too many votes, but some of his at-risk colleagues have been more open to looking at Clinton's nominees.

In two of the tightest Senate races, Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire are keeping an open mind about filling the vacancy. Toomey said on Tuesday that "advise and consent would occur quickly no matter who the president is," while Ayotte said in an interview last week that she's ready to dig into the matter come January.

"My position has been that the people should weigh in and that has not changed. We will see who they elect and the next president will make the choice and we will go forward with the confirmation process," Ayotte said.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is also up for reelection, has declined to schedule a hearing for Garland and has no intentions to do so in the lame duck. But on a conference call with local reporters, he indicated the next president won't face the same sort of blockade.

"If that new president happens to be Hillary, we can't just simply stonewall," Grassley said, according to Radio Iowa.