Posted on 02/23/2016 4:05:48 PM PST by Kaslin
I’ll give you the quote but you should really listen to the clip, as it’s short and oh so sweet. How often does this guy get caught by reporters with nothing coherent to say in his or his party’s defense? I thought he’d at least try arguing that Biden said what he said in June 1992 whereas Scalia’s vacancy opened up in February of this year and that makes all the difference somehow even though it actually makes no difference at all, but he doesn’t even fart out that excuse. All he can say to the fact that Obama, Biden, Harry Reid, and he himself have supported blocking SCOTUS nominees in the past is, essentially, that the Senate should do what Democrats want now whether or not it grossly contradicts what the entire Democratic leadership wanted in the past.
"Look, the simple answer to this, which everyone is saying everywhere is, 'Do your job.' It doesn't matter what anybody said in the past. Do your job. It's working," Schumer said. He claims he had not seen Biden's exact statement but when pressed about it, he repeated, "We should do our job."
The Daily Caller asked Schumer about his past statement in regards to blocking George W. Bush nominees in Bush's final year and Schumer only repeated, "We should do our job." TheDC asked Schumer if his stance was hypocritical, and he fell silent and left on a Senate train.
Translation: “F*** you, that’s why.” The question is, is the Biden clip enough to placate voters who prefer to have Scalia’s replacement appointed this year rather than next? The GOP’s running a smart messaging strategy right now (for once) by trying to frame this argument as a battle over whether the people should decide who fills the vacancy with their votes this fall or a lame-duck president should. But that’s not an altogether easy sell. If you believe PPP, 58 percent in Ohio and 57 percent in Pennsylvania think Scalia’s seat should be filled this year. The numbers among independents are much higher, and 52 percent in both states say they’re less likely to vote for a senator this year — namely, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey — who refuses to confirm a new nominee sight unseen. If, on the other hand, you don’t believe PPP because they’re a left-leaning poll firm whose methodology has been challenged in the past, would you believe Pew?
Interesting, but how many voters who’d otherwise be inclined to vote Republican will vote Democratic this year to punish the GOP for obstructing the nominee knowing that that makes it more likely that their less favored party will get to appoint Scalia’s replacement? If you prefer a more conservative Supreme Court, it’d be the height of stupidity to vote for Hillary Clinton or a Democratic Senate in order to punish Pat Toomey or Rob Portman for refusing to let Obama make the appointment. The only risk is alienating truly centrist independents, and it’s hard for me to imagine Republican obstruction being a decisive factor for them in an election between two personalities as big as Hillary and Trump. You like Trump but Toomey pissed you off so you’re going to send the Clintons back to the White House instead? C’mon. Unless there’s an epidemic of ballot-splitting, blocking the nominee isn’t going to turn any states one color or the other.
Besides, Roll Call makes a good point. Obama’s certainly going to nominate someone for the seat and it’ll probably be someone who’s a bit more centrist, like Sri Srinivasan, in order to make the politics of this tougher for Republicans. If the GOP suffers a bloodbath in November, there’s an obvious move for them to make:
If it gets to be Nov. 9, and the White House or the Senate have been won by the Democrats, the Republicans could decide to confirm any reasonably mainstream center-left Obama pick as the bird-in-the-hand alternative to whomever the new president might choose or the next senatorial majority might accept.
They could confirm Srinivasan in the lame-duck session on the theory that whoever Hillary nominates, fresh off a Democratic victory and with more Democrats in the Senate next year, can only be worse. Obama could withdraw the nomination and deny them that opportunity, of course, but who knows if he would. I’m sure he’d like to make a third SCOTUS appointment rather than leave it to Hillary, and it’d feel like a betrayal of Srinivasan to yank him out of contention just as there’s a real possibility that he might be confirmed. Maybe Democrats would insist, claiming that the people had spoken and that it was now Hillary’s appointment to make (and, after all, she could always re-nominate Srinivasan herself). The prospect of a much more liberal Court would be enticing to them. But Obama wouldn’t need to play ball. In the end, if he stands by his man, the GOP Senate could confirm him at the end of the year. I’d say there’s a healthy chance that Obama lets them.
Mitch McConnell is still talking tough about rejecting Obama’s nominee without consideration. Will that last?
Allahpundit again. Who is this guy? Why this moniker?
Are you sure?
Sure of what?
Schumer kept promising Boehner would pass the amnesty bill by the end of the month.
He/she is blogger for that HotAir. He/she typically blogs and runs and hides never engaging the dwindling posters at HotAir. That site has jumped the shark
There should be hearings held. Any candidate that will try the Hildabeast should be considered. Next year.
Keeping ideological hacks off the bench is their job.
Fungus: The same thing can be asked of you
I'm interested too. I collect spores, molds, and fungus.
So what would be the actual effect of leaving Scalia’s seat open until next year?
Every decision that would have been a 5 to 4 win for the liberal wing of the Court will instead be a 5 to 3 win for the liberal wing of the Court. The only cases that will be affected are those that would have been a 5 to 4 win for the conservative wing of the Court. Those cases will now be deadlocked 4 to 4.
The effect of a deadlock is that court of appeals decision will stand. So the only cases that will actually be affected are those in which a 5 to 4 conservative majority would have overturned the court of appeals decision. No other cases will be affected one way or the other. Those few cases can always be reheard next term.
What this is really about is that liberals are giddy with excitement over the sudden unexpected opportunity to flip decisions that would have been 5 to 4 wins for the conservative wing into 5 to 4 wins for the liberal wing. Well there are still three 80 year old Justices left on the Court. So whether Scalia’s seat is filled this year or not, the next President is going to determine the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years.
In the immortal words of Joe Biden, “once the political season is underway — and it is — action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.”
Look, the only “job” that Schumer is talking about is continuing his egomaniacal, leftist political and psychological blow job on the American people.
Schumer is a “power fanatic” so he has only one goal - to get as much power as possible while denying it to the American people.
In other words, he’s a dictator-in-training. Always was, always will be.
America be damned, he’s got a “job” to do on them.
I believe Salem owns Hot Air, but I may be wrong on that.
It’s Fungi and FR covers for us, requires it “Kaslin.” Townhall has real people and most use their real name. Does Allahpundit have something to hide?
it's spelled SCHWULER!!!
(Schwuler = Fag in German)
Don’t you love the hypocrisy? All we’ve heard from the dems in congress is the republicans are wasting everyone’s time holding obamacare repeal votes, because they would never pass or be vetoed by the president. So stop wasting time. Well, isn’t this the same concept? Why waste time with a hearing if we know republican’s will vote in unison against it. The president’s nominees will never make it to the bench. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Well said.
How about trying to spin his own words, too?
Take the nomination, hang it up in committee for a while, hold debate.
Bork, Bork, Bork...
Vote it down.
Repeat as necessary.
To be a bigger asshole,old Chuckie would have to gain weight.
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.