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 ...
“Why has the NYT not placed Gorsuch on a plot like this?”
I don’t know. Where on that line would you put him?
The ‘Rats have a nice tight grouping.
-PJ
I don’t blame them for being angry. And I’m not going to be a hypocrite and pretend we didn’t steal the seat. We did. But we stole it fair and square. They need to deal with it because the alternative is we kill what’s left of the filibuster.
One day this is may come back to haunt us. But we have to deal with the here and now. And we can’t allow a left leaning SCOTUS. So yeah, we stole the seat. And no, I’m not apologizing.
Swiping that for a T-shirt!
The senate was under no obligation to vote on Garland.
But I would like to know.
I think it should read GUNS but I didn't make it.
OK, so the idea is NOT to place the most qualified person in nomination.
The governing rule is, “you screwed me, so now I’m gonna screw you.”
Do I have that right, LA Times?
Suggest you effete a**holes read George Washington’s Farewell address, providing your “education” allows you to read and, more importantly UNDERSTAND, what he wrote.
Boy,they got *that* right.Today,the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader are Republicans and the Rats can't even come close to carrying Florida,Wisconsin,Michigan *or* Pennsylvania.
No,these are *not* normal times.
Good one!
And the judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of the three.
Their ignorance is breathtaking.
That’s OK. We don’t really care what a phony newspaper prints.
Dear LAT, you don’t get a vote.
THAT is the best these spineless swine can come up with? He stole the seat?
But! A 4-4 decision can be reconsidered later.
liberty! guns! beer! Trump!
EXCELLENT
So put two guns in your picture....
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.