Posted on 02/15/2016 5:17:40 PM PST by jazusamo
With the untimely death of Antonin Scalia Saturday, President Barack Obama has been handed the opportunity of a lifetime to tilt the Supreme Court to the left for decades to come. It's also given Democrats an issue to demagogue from now until election day and beyond.
About an hour after Scalia's death was confirmed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "threw down the gauntlet," announcing that the Senate would not be confirming a replacement for him until after the 2016 election, a move Politico called, "an historic rebuke of President Obama's authority and an extraordinary challenge to the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits." But there is nothing "historic" or "extraordinary" about challenging "the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits." Democrats have been blocking judicial nominees based on ideological grounds rather than their "individual merits" for decades now.
Regardless, the president wasted no time in lecturing the Senate about its "responsibility" to give his nominee "a fair hearing and a timely vote."
"These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone," Obama intoned. "They're bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy. They're about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our Founders envisioned."
Hillary Clinton issued her own statement in support of Obama on Saturday evening.
"Let me just make one point," Clinton said, whipping up the crowd at the state Democratic Party event. "Barack Obama is president of the United States until Jan. 20, 2017. That is a fact, my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not."
In a long departure from her stump speech, Clinton attached the new Supreme Court vacancy to her argument about Democrats needing to get serious about winning in November."Just look at the Supreme Court. I know that our thoughts and prayers are with the Scalia family tonight, and I'm also thinking and praying for the future of our country," Clinton said. "It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates."
Either Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have short memories or they're raging hypocrites because both have participated in Democrat filibusters of President Bush's nominees to high courts on nothing but ideological grounds. In 2003, Democrats invented the filibuster of judicial nominees in order to defeat many of President Bush's conservative nominees to the federal circuit courts.
The filibuster strategy developed out of the Democrats' concern for the fact that Republicans commanded a majority in the Senate and were in a position to approve all the president's appellate-level judicial nominees. As a result of the new filibuster tactic employed by the Democrats, President Bush has had the lowest confirmation rate for such appointments in the history of the U. S.
The Obama era principle, "elections have consequences," was not yet operational, so highly respected and accomplished judicial nominees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown were filibustered by Senate Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton. Democrats began filibustering an unprecedented number of President Bush's judicial nominees to the federal circuit courts of appeals in 2003.
The net effect was that those nominees blocked by filibusters never received the up-or-down vote provided for in the U. S. Constitution's advice and consent clause, Article II, Section 2. Due to the Democrats' sleight of hand filibuster tactic, despite having majority support the filibustered nominees never received any vote at all on their nominations.
President George W. Bush tapped Miguel Estrada to be a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in May of 2001, but Senate Democrats used the filibuster to block his approval. Estrada, a Honduran immigrant, had argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and unanimously received the American Bar Association's rating of "well-qualified" - the highest rating possible. Democrats objected to the highly qualified conservative jurist for purely ideological reasons. He would have been the first Hispanic to sit on that court, which is seen as a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Faced with two years of Democratic obstruction, Mr. Estrada finally withdrew from consideration in September of 2003.
In light of this recent history, the only thing that is "outrageous" about the way McConnell is handling the Supreme Court vacancy, is Clinton's gross hypocrisy on the matter.
In 2006, then-Senator Obama joined a filibuster to delay the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, one of President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court. This is what the junior senator from Illinois said at the time about the Senate's role in confirming nominees.
"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said in January 2006. "When you look at his decisions - in particular, during times of war - we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch," said Obama.
Of course, Obama meant to say "some check on a Republican executive branch."
In his floor statement on the confirmation of Justice Alito, Obama said:
"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.
I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character."
So Obama openly admitted at the time that his main objection to the eminently qualified Alito was based on ideology. Ten years later, he would be touchingly dedicated to honoring the Supreme Court "beacon of justice" with "fair hearings and "timely votes" no doubt so each nominee can be considered based on his or her individual merits.
Too bad. The precedent for the GOP to delay and obstruct and filibuster judicial nominees on ideological grounds was set by Democrats. And it needs to be embraced by Republicans, right now, more than ever before.
Three EQUAL branches. Even when we have an Imam in Chief.
Democrats did the same tactic. Too bad, Harry, Pelosi, and President Zer0
.... announcing that the Senate would not be confirming a replacement ....
McConnell said SHOULD not, not would not. h/t Rush.
This seems pretty straight forward to me.
The Constitution says that the president gets to pick a name.
The Constitution says that the Senate says either Yes or No to the name.
So let Obama pick a name and let the Senate say No.
Everyone abides by the Constitution, and then, sometime in 2017, the President will pick a name and the Senate will says Yes.
That’s how it works.
Thanks, hopefully they WILL not.
Here are the senators up for reelection this November.
SENATORS UP FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2016
DEMOCRATS
Michael Bennet (Colorado)
Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut)
Barbara Boxer (California) retiring in 2016
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) retiring in 2016
Patty Murray (Washington)
Harry Reid (Nevada) retiring in 2016
Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Charles Schumer (New York)
Ron Wyden (Oregon)
REPUBLICANS
Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
John Boozman (Arkansas)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Dan Coats (Indiana) retiring in 2016
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
John Hoeven (North Dakota)
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
James Lankford (Oklahoma)
Mike Lee (Utah)
John McCain (Arizona)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Marco Rubio (Florida) retiring in 2016
Tim Scott (South Carolina)
Richard Shelby (Alabama)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
David Vitter (Louisiana)
Yep, you’re so right but we’ll hear many Dems screaming partisanship, let ‘em scream.
If the Senate Judiciary Committee puts his foot down and requires that any nominee not be under indictment or require a pardon to serve would eliminate most current and former senior Administration personnel with the exception of the White House Paid Liar. Although Josh Earnest has the attributes desired in a DC lawyer as a professional liar, most Senate RINOs indicated that they would prefer one with a degree in law.
the worm has turned...
I support them and believe they should stall any Obama nomination all year. However, I don't think the republican leadership has the courage to stand and follow through.
What I am afraid (in fact expect) is that the media will be able to throw so much flak at the republicans that it could turn public sentiment into support for Hilary Clinton.
If that were to happen, Obama would eventually get his nominee confirmed and as soon as Hillary is in office Ginsburg and Kennedy could retire and deliver a 6-3 split on the board that would last for decades. The three conservatives would be Thomas and Alito ... with Roberts who has proved he doesn't respect law and can't be trusted
Either Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have short memories or they’re raging hypocrites because both have participated in Democrat filibusters of President Bush’s nominees to high courts on nothing but ideological grounds.
In 2003, Democrats invented the filibuster of judicial nominees in order to defeat many of President Bush’s conservative nominees to the federal circuit courts.
As a result of the new filibuster tactic employed by the Democrats, President Bush has had the lowest confirmation rate for such appointments in the history of the U. S.
Highly respected and accomplished judicial nominees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown were filibustered by Senate Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton. Democrats began filibustering an unprecedented number of President Bush’s judicial nominees to the federal circuit courts of appeals in 2003.
Rubio said he will not run. Has he changed his mind on that?
Makes it even more important that a Republican win this year.
I trust any of ‘em to make better appointments than Shrillary or Sanders.
That’s surely a possibility.
I believe 0bama’s nominee should be blocked, we have to take a stand at some point and this may be the last chance to save our Republic.
Hillary may not win the Dem nomination or there’s still a possibility of her being indicted even if it’s a long shot.
These people lie for a living. They believe that the American people are too stupid to ever discover what slime they are.
.... That should consume 11 months easy.
Look again at the list.
I guess that answers my question!
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.