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.
Obama has a chance to be statesmanlike and pick someone widely respected--the closest thing to a Scalia on the Democrat side that he can find. But that would require him to think about what is best for the country and for his legacy. He is very unlikely to take that route when the alternative is to make a political battle out of it in hopes of scoring some advantage short term from it. Anyway he will have to do whatever Valerie Jarrett tells him to do.
True, which is why Mc Connell stepping out w/a process argument is so disheartenting. He’s basically admitting he’s going to cave.
I don’t care if their Rat opponent is to the left of Bernie Sanders, any Republican Senator who doesn’t stop this will get voted out.
Am I missing something here regarding “the next president” argument? What if the next president is Hillary?
The media’s all in on getting an Obama pick but I’m surprised at Canada Free Press.
Idiotic article.
The process is clearly specified in the Constitution. If someone doesn’t care for the process then they should stop pretending that they care for the constitution and STFU.
The Republicans have NO option other than to openly and honestly oppose the nominee, and take their lumps (if the nominee is Latino, being painted as racist, for example.) if they have to.
Sorry Senate Republicans- cowboy up and act like freakin’ MEN for once or pay the price. You’ve been drawing these nice salaries and benefits and mostly posturing. It would be as if I got a job as a bouncer in a bar, acting all bad-ass, and then comes the time I actually have to get down to business, with everybody watching.
No, but they usually do.
Let’s pray the Senate Republicans have the backbone to stick with this position.
Thurgood Marshall retired from the Court after the Gulf War when it looked like George H. W. Bush was a shoo-in for re-election. That gave Bush a chance to replace him with Clarence Thomas. If Marshall had stayed on the Court until his death Clinton would have picked his replacement. So the country lucked out in that instance.
Kennedy, remember, was the third choice.
What if the next president is Hillary?
Buying time to prevent final acts of Constitutional destruction. A Republican can’t pick a SCt justice unless elected; delay buys a chance. If Repub Pres nominates, then person won’t be a Scalia as Schumer will filibuster. So expect a more moderate - Sandra Day Oconnor type.
If Hillary is elected, then Repubs need to Bork all nominees until someone in the middle emerges. Not sure GOPe would do this - they rubber stamped intellectual lightweight, leftist Kagan.
All the Repubs have to say now when challenged that Obama is Pres and he gets his nominee to the Court - “We were elected to represent our people, and We are only doing what the partisan Dems have done and would do.” Repeat over and over and over ad nauseam.
Long term, things seem to be slipping away faster with the death of this one Justice. Too many people have sold out their freedom, bought into lies and evil, too many don’t know their country’s history and traditions. May God Bless Antonin Scalia for defending and allowing us to enjoy peacefully our liberties for 3 decades more.
There is a chance to fight for and defend this country w/ any one of the Repubs - and it won’t be easy, but will be relatively easier than if Hillary is in.
Therefore, there is no luxury now for any Freeper to not vote for the Repub nominee b/c he does not meet our personal purity litmus test for conservative or libertarian. Politics is messy, smelly, vile, ugly business. Once in, vigilance will be required to make sure things get done for those that put him in the office. The Senate and House need to be held too. Scalia fought for us, and our freedom, and we can’t let that be in vain. God Bless Scalia, a great great American!
IIRC, it’s pretty much been settled senatorial policy to wait until the new president takes office rather than allow a lame duck president to choose a SCOTUS justice. The Dems in 1960 even specifically passed a resolution to that effect.
The problem is that Obama may well nominate someone who is difficult to reject on the merits. The name that is floating around now is Sri Srinivasan, who the Senate unanimously confirmed to a lifetime seat on the D.C. Circuit just two or three years ago. It would be very difficult for the Senate Republicans to effectively argue that Srinivasan is a radical liberal who should not be confirmed, so just voting him down would make it easy for the Dems to paint the GOP as obstructionists.
So, to avoid that trap, perhaps it is better to effectively admit to being obstructionists. Don’t bother with having to make disingenuous arguments about each individual nominee — just say we’ll deal with the seat when a new President comes in.
With all the Republicans loudly announcing they will oppose anybody he nominated they handed Obama a clear win. He can do just what you suggest, nominate a well-respected left-center candidate, then use opposition to that nominee in the Senate races to try to get a Dem majority in November.
The Republicans outmaneuvered themselves without the opposition moving.
Obama always wins in your world, doesn’t he, kookster?
No, and he’s not winning this one through his efforts. It’s a totally unforced error.
Not approving an Obama nominee would be entirely consistent with the history of nomination to the Court; pre-emptively declaring no nominee would pass and Obama shouldn’t even bother just hands the Dems the issue for November.
I think you’re overthinking it. A bloody, unsuccessful nomination battle will just turn people off. It’s okay to appear partisan in a presidential election year.
Unlikely though it is, Reagan might have simple not been told by his "advisers" that Kennedy had been known as a certified perv... errr confirmed gay man for years...
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.