Posted on 02/15/2016 11:43:13 AM PST by conservativejoy
Sounds like pretty good advice, huh? Thankfully, Chuck Schumer has gone on record on this issue, insisting to the American Constitution Society that the Senate not only has the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment, Schumer insists (via Grabien and Gary Gross):
Of course Schumer aimed this at George W. Bush, but note that this speech took place in mid-2007, when Bush still had 18 months left in his presidency. That's almost twice as much as Barack Obama has left in his own, and both presidents appointed two members to the court. Schumer complains about the supposed extremism of the two appointments, but Republicans can easily make the same complaint about both of Obama's appointments. Gander, sauce ... some assembly required.
The only differences between then and now are the party that controls the White House, and the small allowance Schumer holds out for potential cooperation. If an extraordinary candidate who could pass Democrats' standards for "mainstream" came before the Senate for confirmation, then Schumer says they could consider approving him or her. Republicans are insisting that they won't confirm anyone regardless of whom Obama appoints, which functionally amounts to the same threat Schumer made in mid-2007 but is a little harder to sell as a reasonable stand. If Obama nominated an Alito or Roberts, why would Republicans refuse to confirm him or her? Obama has no intention of replacing Scalia with another conservative, of course, but what if Obama agreed to confer with the Republican majority to give him three acceptable options for nominees and he appointed one of them? Would they still refuse to hold hearings?
The GOP would have been smarter to take the Schumer road, but it's a little late for that now, and it really doesn't make that much difference. Every time someone complains that Republicans are acting unconstitutionally, offer them Schumer's 2007 declaration - and the American Constitution Society's approving applause.
Did the Senate Republicans agree with Schumer in 2007?
Or, are all politicians hypocrites?
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in 1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
“...in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.”
So, Harry Reid can take his whiney demand and stick it!
Just a thought. If the Democrats take back the Senate in early January, 2017, Obama still has a couple weeks left in his term. Could they ram through a nominee in that case? Would they?
I think they could do that, yes.
Obama is president until January 20. The new Senate takes office on January 3. If Dems. Control the Senate after the 2016 election, and if a Republican wins the 2016 election, this would be their parting shot.
If a Democrat is elected president then they would not bother with that.
“Did the Senate Republicans agree with Schumer in 2007?”
Welcome to Free Republic. Out of curiosity, were you too young to engage in political discourse for the first 7 years of Obama’s reign of terror? Or is there some other reason you waited until just 6 months ago to share your insights?
What was your position on this issue in 2007?
As I states in my post, all politicians are hypocrites?
The same could also be said for partisans.
However, 2007 was about obstruction.
They could nominate someone, but since it takes two thirds of the Senate to confirm, it might go nowhere. Hopefully the Dems will not get a majority and certainly not two thirds.
I’m sure they did. It upheld their resolution passed in 1960 that said that no SCJ’s should be appointed by a lame duck President in an election year.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52 to 48. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster.
That’s right, the nuclear option is in effect now. Let’s hope the RINOs don’t cave on the filibuster.
The reality is that Scalia represented one vote away from a choice between tyranny and civil war. I guess the left thinks they are ready for that. We’ll see.
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.