Who has the better argument, Chuck Grassley or Hillary Clinton, re: Supreme Court?

[geek tragedy]

There's a post up in DU where Chuck Grassley responds to Hillary Clinton regarding the GOP's blockade of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, as captured at this link:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/chuck-grassley-hillary-clinton-221295#ixzz44EEM6QG5

ESTHERVILLE, Iowa — Sen. Chuck Grassley preemptively swung back at Hillary Clinton ahead of her expected Monday speech in which she's expected to hammer the Judiciary Committee chairman for his role in blocking the confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

“With all the troubles she’s getting on e-mail, and the FBI’s going to question her, I would imagine she’d want to change the tone of her campaign,” Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO in an interview here. He was apparently referring to a Los Angeles Times story Monday that indicated an FBI investigation of the private email server she used as secretary of state is entering a final phase that will include interviews with her advisers.

Curiously, there's a split in the reaction to this.

Maybe I'm out of touch in my thinking about how people at Democratic Underground should react.

Who has the better argument? Which is more persuasive.

3 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	I sympathize with Clinton's call for Garland to get Senate hearings
	3 (100%)
	I sympathize with Grassley telling Clinton to STFU because of the FBI investigation
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll