Posted on 04/14/2017 9:21:28 PM PDT by MtnClimber
Liberals shocked by the Garland/Gorsuch episode ignore a long history.
On Thursday, the New York Times’s Linda Greenhouse lamented the confirmation of now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, asserting that Republicans have over-politicized the Supreme Court, thereby jeopardizing its integrity. In making her case, Greenhouse displays ignorance of both our constitutional structure and the political history that rendered the Court an “electoral prize,” which has been the case long before Republicans blocked the 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland. Though there is not likely to be much of a gap between how Justice Gorsuch and the late Justice Scalia would have ruled on cases likely to come before the Court in the near term, Greenhouse treats Gorsuch’s appointment as a game-changer. She expresses “astonishment” at the argument that Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012 did not “entitle” him to fill the vacancy left by Scalia’s death. She ignores the fact that the Constitution’s Advice and Consent Clause gives the Senate the ability to veto any president’s nominations, for whatever reason. However unusual the sequence of events leading up to Gorsuch’s confirmation may seem, the reality remains that the Constitution requires presidents to obtain Senate consent before appointing a nominee—a concept dating back at least as far as Marbury v. Madison, which stated that presidential appointments “can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
Barack Obama was not “entitled” to fill the vacancy: he was entitled to nominate someone whom the Senate was then free to confirm or reject out of hand.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
I smile every time the left loses a political battle.
No kidding.
Try ~1935.
SCOTUS closed out one year’s session supporting the Constitution but started the next year off supporting the New Deal.
I’ve often wondered what was the full suite of dirty tricks, extortions and bribes that FDR employed to force that huge of a betrayal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3544193/posts
Interesting information on why Obama picked Garland!
Liberals always accuse others of what they do.
Projection. Deflection. Misdirection.
Yeah back 140 years ago, give or take a few years.
Using Alinsky tactics, how do you hold the democRATs to their own standards when they have none.
Nobody has been holding the Democrats to their own standards since the 1800’s.
FDR was one of the worst violator of abusing his power to ensure the Supreme Court vote to his liking or he was going to increase the amount of justices to ensure a shift to his liking
Or 1933, where the SC said this was Constitutional: 
I read where some brothers sensed what was coming, or just had good timing, for they converted $20,000 into gold coin. After the edict, the feds tracked them down, seized the coins and refunded their money. The brothers took it to the SC, who said it was OK as they got "value for value" - conveniently forgetting that the gold went from $20 an ounce to $35.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.