"Yes Dear Leader, whatever you request Dear Leader..."
"I can't tell you what an honor it is to meet you Dear Leader...."
Posted on 02/15/2016 7:37:40 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Neither timing nor process is the reason to prevent Obama from picking Scalia's successor. Obama is the reason
Things happened very quickly on Saturday in the hours after the nation learned of Antonin Scalia’s death. When I sat down to write up my piece on it, I decided to advocate what seemed to me at least a somewhat radical position - that the Republican-controlled Senate needed to reject any Obama nominee, simply because the left’s assault on the Constitution could prove fatal to the nation if we found ourselves with five Supreme Court Justices who view the Constitution with the same disdain Obama does.
I wasn’t surprised when Ted Cruz quickly came out with a statement saying the same thing, but I was very surprised when Mitch McConnell did so - and only a couple of hours after Scalia’s death became known. We’ve covered to death here McConnell’s disinclination to stand up to Obama on just about anything, but maybe this signaled his recognition that the survival of this nation as a constitutionally limited republic was too important to worry about media criticism in this instance.
The answer is this: Obama does not like the Constitution, so the Senate should use the legislative power to appoint the next justice. After all Obama has greedily appointed two justices during his disasterous administrations. It’s the Republican’s turn now.
My recommendation is to appoint Mark Levin. He would make a great justice in the interest of political competence and fairness.
Just because the president nominates someone doesn’t mean that the Senate has to roll over and blindly confirm him/her.
Great post!
Thanks.
For once Mitch straighten up that spine and fight for this.
Uh . . . Kerry called for the same thing during Bush’s lame duck year.
I have zero faith in zero, however I agree the process argument is ridiculous. Senate rules don’t override the constitution and the constitution makes no mention of election year squabbles.
Also note, appointments are not guarantees of “flavor”. After all, Reagan put Kennedy up there - the author of that absurd gay marriage justification.
The Senate should hang its hat on the basis of the nominee. If they want to get political, great, base the decision on how much of an originalist the candidate is.
"Yes Dear Leader, whatever you request Dear Leader..."
"I can't tell you what an honor it is to meet you Dear Leader...."
Then the Democrats were “lame” when they did the exact same thing before.
I think the Senate should grow balls and turn down all nominees of Obama.
They were stupid in not shutting up and just doing it on the job.
Can Republicans hold ANY line.
This next Justice could make owning a gun, not wanting open borders and having a gun a crime, no joke!
They need o hold off Obama and allow President Trump to nominate a Justice Cruz.
I completely agree that this is a HUGE tactical error. However, the GOP is nothing if not stupid.
Let him make the pick. Put it up for a vote. Vote it down.
This approach does absolutely nothing but drive Dims to the polls and allows the Dims to seize every existing meme.
But hey. They don’t ask me.
Reagan put Kennedy up there after the Democrats rejected Bork and Ginzburg was outed by the media for smoking pot. The Democrats are the ones who dragged the process out through their fighting each nomination. The original nominations occurred in 1987.
BS--McTurtle is handing out the K-Y Jelly to the Senate Republican Caucus even as I type this.
And it’s just effin’ lame to claim “It’s not fair, the next president should get to do the nominating!” Lord, these people are just WEAK and pathetic. USE THE PROCESS! Of course, that might necessitate McConnell, et al having to actually say no to Obama, “which would make us look bad and be subject to criticism from the people who will criticize us anyway.”
Ptooey.
But .. when Chuck Schumer does it .. then it’s okay ..??
We all know what kind of person the DemocRATS want on the bench; somebody who will fast-track ANYTHING OBAMA WANTS.
And, I have serious doubts the GOP-e will have the GUTS to stick it out until after the next President takes office.
Soooooo America .. what say you ..???? Does anybody here want Loretta Lynch as a Supreme ..?? I don’t believe she got much push-back for approval for DOJ .. so what’s different now ..??
Any pube that supports Obama at this time should be removed from Congress.
Yes, and the dems arg against the candidates were based on the candidates themselves, not the process.
Repubs should do the same now. However, with McConnell coming off the bat whining about process only tells me that he’s not willing (nor any other rino) to make an argument against a candidate as they should, and certainly not out of any sense of morality or interest in serving the country.
In other words, the line he’s drawing is a faux one, and I expect the worst. He may as well be saying “Once this process argument is out of the way, we’ll take anyone you give us.”
Scalia is a big loss. It reduces my hope for this country yet another notch.
I’m afraid the gopE is going to say “This could cost us the election. We’ll have to confirm whomever he sends up then hope we win and can replace Ginzburg.”
Also note, appointments are not guarantees of “flavor”. After all, Reagan put Kennedy up there - the author of that absurd gay marriage justification...
Yeah, but it only goes one way. Dem SC judges rarely veer right unlike wildcard Rep SC judges who veer left whenever.
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.