The author’s underlying premise here is flawed. The Republican Party would never filibuster a Supreme Court nominee named by Barack Obama ... even if Osama bin Laden was the nominee.
It has become the practice for a justice to announce his retirement effective upon the confirmation of his successor. So the “vacancy” is conditional and the Court continues to function with 9 justices as the confirmation process creaks along. I think this is a change in recent decades. Now, if a justice were to die or actually leave the court, I think we would see a much faster process.
In the unlikely event that the GOPe held its ground, for Obama, it would soon no longer matter what the Supreme Court did. He would simply rule by decree disguised by some confusing complex legal obfuscation.
Harry Reid would simply extend his filibuster ban to SCOTUS nominees, and Obama would get his LGBT/Muslim/La Raza nominee confirmed easily.
The question is why doesn’t Ginsberg retire?
She is old, and she is sick (and I think a case could be made that she is no longer up to the job, perhaps her clerks are doing all the real work).
But why hang on? She could have retired when the Democrats were in full control and could have nominated and have confirmed any far left extreme person.
So why didn’t she, and why is she hanging on now?
I don’t have an answer but I think it would prove interesting when (if) the truth is ever known.
If Harry Reid is still majority leader, what makes the author not even consider the highly probable likelihood that Reid would change the rules of the Senate without hesitation (by outlawing filibusters of Supreme Court nominees) if it suits his party politically?
The only reason he hasn’t done so yet is that there was no vacancy at the time. The Democrats needed to pack the lower courts with political nominees, so that’s the rule that Harry Reid needed changed. And he did. Anyone who thinks he wouldn’t do it again for expediency’s sake is a fool. The man is obviously shameless, and he can expect the same compliance from the media as when he did it the first time.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
It will make no difference to the court’s make-up if Obama gets to replace that old bat. He’ll simply choose another lib-tard dirt-bag; and he’d be hard pressed to find someone who hates the U.S. Constitution more than does Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Now, if he had a chance to replace Scalia or Thomas, THAT would be a disaster.
As to whether the Republicans are too GOPe and therefore wouldn’t oppose Obama, I disagree. Things aren’t quite as dire as that. I think the party would stick together and oppose them... You might not think us conservatives have any impact; yet we do. To buck something so contentious as allowing Obama to nominate a political ideologue would be enormous ammunition for a potential TEA party primary challenger that probably keeps the more GOPe senators awake at night in a cold sweat.
In other words, the challenges, some successful, like Ted Cruz, some not, Like Bevins and McDainiels (and we haven’t reached the end of the road with him) scare the BLANK out of the GOPe and make them spend a whole heck of a lot of money they otherwise wouldn’t. So, things are not as DIRE as we make them out here.
Having said all that, the writer of this article really, really whitewashes the democrats corruption of nominees and tries to pin all the damage on Republicans, which is bullsh!t.
If you remember the arrogance of “I won” and “Get in the back seat” or “Eat your peas” you will see that most of the political discourse in this country today has been caused by the current White House pResident. Before that the anti-Bush contingent in the press and democrat party also piled it on. And Ted Kennedy’s attack on Bork was totally shameful. No, I do not think the Republicans have been the main cause of disunity, but rather the democrat desire to win at all costs and never cease campaigning, with the constant lapdog media yipping, twisting and lying for them as THE primary factor by a landslide.
Final thing. I am a Southerner, but I do not approve of any 2nd Confederacy, that is us Southerners seceding from the Union, but rather this time, let’s throw the Liberal states out of the Union! We’ll KEEP Old Glory, and let them fly their true banner, the Hammer and Sickle!!!
I don’t believe the conclusion. Republicans mostly believe that the Democrats are the natural Ruling Party and should get what they want as regards judges and Justices. They won’t be “breaking with their party” when they vote for a kenyan Justice.
all federal judicial nominations - why we need a GOP majority Congress for a generation. If we had 16 years of a GOP President, along with GOP control of the Congress, we’d be able to really shake up the federal bench.