Conservatives: Court nominee must be stopped at all costs

The Hill ^ | 02/22/16 | Alexander Bolton

[xzins]

Conservative leaders are sending a blunt message to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: The Supreme Court is more important than your majority.

McConnell’s (R-Ky.) top priority since becoming majority leader last year has been to put his colleagues in a strong position to win reelection, in part by showing that Republicans can govern.

But bottling up President Obama’s nominee to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia could bring the work of the chamber to a screeching halt if Democrats choose to retaliate. Conservatives say that’s the risk McConnell has to take.

Taking action on a Supreme Court nominee — even through the Judiciary Committee — when Obama has less than a year left in his term would be a cardinal sin, conservative activists say.

They argue the ideological balance of the court is so important that it’s not worth playing political games to take the pressure off vulnerable Republican incumbents.

“I would rank having a conservative justice as more important than having the majority in the Senate,” said David Bozell, president of For America, a conservative advocacy group. “God knows this Republican majority in the Senate hasn’t done much anyway for conservatism, period."

“If you look at some of the conservative movement’s successes, it’s in large part due to the court doing some decent things and making some good decisions,” he added.

Two of the biggest court decisions in recent years, the District of Columbia v. Heller and Citizens United v. FEC, did far more to lift restrictions on gun ownership and political spending by outside groups — two conservative priorities — than anything passed by Republicans in Congress.

“The Senate isn’t as important on a great number of issues as the Supreme Court. The Senate is not going to determine whether or not we have Second Amendment rights, the Supreme Court is. The Senate is not going to determine marriage, the Supreme Court did. The Supreme Court, not the Senate, determined abortion,” said Mike Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

“The issues that are of great concern to the conservative movement have all been decided by the Supreme Court,” he added.

Democrats are hammering McConnell and his GOP colleagues for arguing right off the bat that confirming a successor to Scalia should wait until next year, when a new president is in office.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that if Republicans refused to hold hearings, they would be remembered as the “most nakedly obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history.”

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is hitting vulnerable incumbents for not doing their jobs, and newspapers around the country are following suit.

The Concord Monitor wrote in a recent editorial that Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) — who is up for re-election — was “wrong” to echo McConnell “in knee-jerk fashion” by calling for a year-long postponement of confirmation hearings.

“Voters should consider such a refusal to perform their sworn constitutional responsibility to advise and consent, not merely obstruct, a disqualification for future Senate office,” the paper wrote.

The Scranton-Times Tribune editorialized that Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) support for McConnell’s position is “naked obstruction” and that the vulnerable incumbent “should desist.”

The chorus of criticism has put Republicans on the defensive and prompted an internal debate about whether the Senate should at least have hearings on Obama’s nominee.

Freshman Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) warned early in the week that he and his colleagues could “fall into the trap of being obstructionists.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another incumbent up for reelection, initially told reporters Wednesday that Obama’s nominee should get a hearing but has since backed off her statement.

“Certainly there’s nervousness on the part of Republicans about what an absolute refusal to hold any hearings might do to GOP candidates in swing states,” said John Ullyot, a GOP aide and former senior Senate aide. “If Republicans hold hearings, that takes a lot of the pressure off their candidates in swing states who are in some cases in tough races.”

But conservatives warn that holding hearings on a nominee would open Pandora’s box, potentially leading to a floor vote.

While it’s unlikely that Democrats could muster the 14 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, conservatives don’t want to take any chances.

“People who argue that the Republicans should play footsy with President Obama and the Democrats on this Supreme Court opening are the same types of people who are simply tone deaf to the political moment we’re experiencing,” said Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union.

“The Senate should be more important to hold onto, but unfortunately with runaway interventionist court, the Supreme Court might be the most important governmental entity in the entire government,” he said.

“When progressives get five votes they can do something as crazy as declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant. They can change the very nature and understanding of marriage.”

While conservatives say Republicans should use their majority to defend the ideological composition of the court no matter the cost, they vehemently dispute that quashing Obama’s nominee will hurt GOP candidates in November.

Instead, they warn that moving the nominee would provoke such a negative reaction from the party’s base that the fallout on Election Day would be much worse.

“What is the purpose of having a majority unless you use that majority to defend, uphold and defend the Constitution? This is something the left understands quite well in terms of the purpose of the majority, that’s how we got ObamaCare,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

“They used their majority to force ObamaCare onto the nation knowing it may cost them their majority.”

[xzins]

Just received a response from my republican senator who is up for reelection this year. He supports the nomination being made by the next president in 2017.

[Carry_Okie]

Somebody needs to set up camp in the Senate so that it actually never recesses.

[RightGeek]

[Still Thinking]

But bottling up President Obama’s nominee to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia could bring the work of the chamber to a screeching halt if Democrats choose to retaliate. Conservatives say that’s the risk McConnell has to take.

The "work of the chamber"???? Everytime they do anything, all of us, their employers, are screwed just a little more than we were before. The Republic, and all the people that matter, would be better off if they just adjourned and didn't do another thing all year. How is that a risk?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Giving in to the Rats is a guaranteed way to lose the Senate in the fall.

[Still Thinking]

A recess appointment wouldn’t hurt much. They’re just about done hearing arguments for this term, I think, and the appointment would expire when Ebola does.

[xzins]

Do not even give the rino senators the vaguest chance of a vote. If so, we will be screwed.

[Lurkinanloomin]

If they fail to stop this nomination, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.

I will not vote for another Republican candidate for any office.

There would be no point.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Whether to hold hearings is a tough call.

The reality is that Obama gets to appoint his person if the Democrats win the Senate because of the two week difference between when the new Congress convenes, and the Presidential inauguration. Obama will still be President when the new Senate convenes, so his nominee could still be confirmed. What this means is that we must hold on to the Senate.

Some of the Republicans up for election are in tight races, and have to be careful about potentially alienating swing voters. The GOP Senate majority obviously has to make sure this nominee does not get confirmed, but also needs to use some strategery to help out vulnerable Republicans. If that means holding some sham hearings so that those Senators can at least put on an appearance of not being obstructionist, that might be necessary.

It's not enough to be tough. You have to be smart as well.

[xzins]

Allowing a nominee to go forward is the same as a vote against life, a vote against the 2nd amendment, a vote against free speech, a vote against freedom of religion, and I could go on.

Any Obama judge will be on the wrong side of all those issues, so allowing a nominee to go forward is SUPPORTING abortion, gun confiscation, the outlaw of Christianity, and the imposition of federal gag orders.

[xzins]

Smart is beginning the campaign against the appointment right now.

The NRA should already be running ads about Obama Gun confiscation. Right to life about full abortion, Churches about the banning of Christianity in the public forum, etc.

It MUST begin now. And it must lay it out now.

Do not give the initiative to the democrats.

Also, the Constitution says that the president shall nominate “by and with” the advice and consent of the senate.

“By the advice of” means the Senate should PROACTIVELY propose alternative names that will be fully aligned with Antonin Scalia.

This time make the President turn down names and look obstructionist.

[Pietro]

"If they fail to stop this nomination, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs."

I agree. They refuse deliver on why Trump is knocking the snot out of their candidates.

It's a shame but Cruz is committing cruzicide w/ his questionable tactics.

[Religion and Politics]

"I would rank having a conservative justice as more important than having the majority in the Senate," said David Bozell, president of For America, a conservative advocacy group. "God knows this Republican majority in the Senate hasn't done much anyway for conservatism, period."

I like the Bozell's, but I think they are wrong on this one. If we could arrange a trade, say a Cruz on the Supreme Court in trade for the Senate majority, then I agree. Let's make the trade. But that isn't the way the Constitution says it works.

By injecting this political game into the Constitutional processes, I believe it will politicize the Election towards an issue that is not supposed to be voted on. All the "give away" voters that are going to go packing when Bernie fails will have their issue and turn it into a national referendum on the ideological balance of the SCOTUS and the direction of the country. That takes candidates completely out of the equation and it then becomes an up/down vote on proposition "free stuff". With where the media is in this country, and the ignorance of very large swathes of the electorate, I don't think such a referendum framed in that way will win for us.

So the Bozell's are not considering the worst case scenario of losing the Presidency and having a liberal seated on the court, and of course what they already concede, losing the majority in the Senate and who knows in the House.

Don't we already know that the Dems have been setting up just this exact kind of referendum for years by creating the government dependents? I think this is their strategy for the win it all Election sweepstakes. Let's hope Obama does what Biden has proposed and not put forth an impossible nominee, but one that can be reasonably confirmed.

[rockinqsranch]

I notice the article is about the perceptions of the Senate, the Political Parties, the Court, the system, but nothing is said about the constituents.

The representatives of the people should be according to plan just that. What do their constituents say to them. IF the constituents say wait one year for a new President before confirming a new Supreme Court Justice, then why the discussion?

It’s truly we the people, so let’s get out the pen, and pad, and send a note. This battle for power between the parties is out of hand. IF we tell them in mass what we want they will have a bit of a problem with the direction they are now going. It should be evident this coming November as well.

[heights]

Obama will nominate a candidate the Media will call a ‘Moderate’, the Republicans will agree, “Yes, this is a moderate”, and to not be divisive in an election year, the Republicans will Advise and Consent.

[NormsRevenge]

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that if Republicans refused to hold hearings, they would be remembered as the ‘most nakedly obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history.’

—

LOL>> says a “partisan” bloke who never brought legislation to the Senate floor for years.

[xzins]

Obama will nominate a gun confiscation, baby killing, God hating, freedom loathing justice NO MATTER what his words and record say.

Let’s not kid ourselves.

[Fightin Whitey]

Giving in to the Rats is a guaranteed way to lose

Has there ever been a plainer truth?

Every few days we get another indication of how astonishingly removed from reality the politicians and buttboy (and -girl) media truly are.

[aces]

any pub who votes for obammas pick should be tarred and feathered