Posted on 03/25/2017 4:41:57 PM PDT by Trump20162020
A decade ago, The Times urged the Senate to confirm John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court even though he was a conservative judge nominated by a conservative president and was likely to pull the court to the right for decades to come. We backed him, despite our disagreements with his judicial philosophy, because we believe that presidents — Democrats and Republicans alike — are entitled to significant deference when they nominate justices to the high court, so long as the nominees are well qualified and scandal-free, respect precedent and fall within the broad mainstream of judicial thinking.
Under normal circumstances, that same reasoning would lead us to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Like Roberts, he is conservative but competent, with more than a decade of experience on the appellate bench and a “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Assn.
But these are not normal times.
Not after the outrageous obstruction of Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination for 10 full months by Senate Republicans. That debacle began in March 2016, when President Obama nominated Garland, a moderate and well-respected appeals court judge, to fill the seat on the court that had become vacant with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Instead of doing what the Constitution requires and offering their advice and, if merited, their consent, Senate Republicans refused even to engage in the process. They denied Garland a confirmation hearing and in many cases wouldn’t even meet with him — on the hastily fabricated pretext that a president in his final year of office shouldn’t be allowed to name a new justice because … well, it was never really clear what the supposed principle was behind this self-serving position.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That’s the relevant question here. Exactly what does the Socratic assemblage known as the LA Times’ editorial board suggest be done, not that they have found such fault with the current thinking?
Noww THAT’S an essay I’d love to read.
Drop the nuke. It will make easier on the next one.
These freaks need to go back a decade or so ago and see what Joe Biden had to say about it then
The Big EarthQuake can’t happen fast enough for me.
“I regard it as Robert Bork’s seat”
Good point.
By “stolen” they mean “we stole Scalia’s seat fair and square.” Not buying it.
I wonder if they’d had this opinion had George W. tried to nominate 3 Supremes? Probably not.
....on the hastily fabricated pretext that a president in his final year of office shouldn’t be allowed to name a new justice because … well, it was never really clear what the supposed principle was behind this self-serving position.
How quaint. The LA Times conveniently forgets the purpose was to prevent a Republican President from getting a Justice approved. JWB if I recall.
And it was their liberal cult leaders Biden and Schumer who proposed the rule. But Freepers know that.
Who cares what they think/say/feel. Suck it up. You lost.
By this logic, no Supreme Court Justices should ever be confirmed going forward.
Half the time, it doesn't even feel like they're basing their decision on the law or the Constitution. How else can something be constitutional according to the Supreme Court one year, then, a decade later, the same thing be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, despite the Constitution itself not having changed whatsoever in that time frame?
Not to mention, there are only nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court, which gives their vote a lot more meaning than someone in the 435-member U.S. House, or 100-member U.S. Senate.
With that childish and liberal mentality, it is good that that the editorial board of the LA Times has nothing to do with selecting Supreme Court Justices,
It was a conservative justice who the left murdered in the first place.
These fascist are willing to go to literal war for the power they seek. We will each have to make tough decisions soon.
Yes they are. The SC 4-4 split allows them to continue undermining the Trump administration with absurd 9th circuit court rulings.
IF THE CITIZENS OF THE USA HAD WANTED GARLAND, OR ANY OTHER LEFTIST, ON THE SCOTUS, THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR HILLARY. Period.
… well, it was never really clear what the supposed principle was behind this self-serving position
Ask Joe Biden!
The Times urged the Senate to confirm John Roberts
***************************
They probably knew something we only found out more recently.
>>We won, elections have consequences. Deal with it.
PS. Nobody really cares what the LA Times editors think.
<<
If the dims force the GOP to go nuclear (IMHO 80% chance) then the filibuster will be gone forever.
And Trump and Pence will have maybe 5 SCOTUS seats filled. Hopefully no turncoats like that SOB Roberts.
Yep. In America the despots wear black robes.
Roberst needs to be a hair to the R of rdb. NOT way the hell on the R.
obozocare gave him a scarlet letter he can never erase.
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.