Posted on 03/16/2016 8:33:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama has nominated Federal Appeals Judge Merrick Garland to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia. Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is reconfirming the Committee's decision to deny any nominee confirmation hearings.
“The president has full and complete power to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, as he will reportedly do later today,” Lee said in a statement. “But the Constitution also gives the Senate the full and complete power to reject or confirm the nominee,” Lee continued. “It’s as simple as that. In light of the contentious presidential election already well underway, my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick.”
“Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time. The Court has very ably dealt with temporary absences in the past and will do so again now,” Lee continued.
It should be noted President Obama has a constitutional obligation to submit a Supreme Court nomination, but the Senate has no obligation to hold hearings or to confirm the nominee.
In February, Judiciary Committee Republicans sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell explaining their decision not to hold hearings.
"We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now," the Senators wrote. "Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017."
As for the rest of the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will issue a statement about Obama's nominee later today.
If the Republican Senate backs down on this and goes through with what Obama wants, I swear I’ll NEVER vote for another incumbent until all your asses are gone!!!!!!
LOL! How much spine does it take to ignore something and hope it goes away?
No way! If this EVER gets out of committee all the pressure will be on the squishy Republicans, you know, the usual suspects, and they WILL cave to the god of bipartisan cooperation. If this ever gets out of committee then you will know for certain it’s game over.
True, but the question is more political than constitutional. Does McConnell force Lee to hold hearings now, on the assumption that Trump will lose to Hillary and she will nominate someone far less moderate? Does he wait, hoping to make a deal with Trump if he wins for someone better? Or will the Democrats regain control of the Senate and make this a moot argument? All political considerations.
Good one. 3 points!
Agreed.
They totally should do the dog and pony show and then reject him because he is anti-2nd amendment.
Right now, it’s hubris and won’t go over well with independents - you know, the voters that support Trump.
McC shouldn’t make any comments at all on this henceforth. Every comment he makes will cause KY people to have regrets about “fairness” and demand confirmation of this latest liberal pick.
READ THIS ABOUT JUDGE GARLAND’s BACKGROUND:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland
EXCERPT:
Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.
He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.
Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law.
Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.
Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.
That’s not so moderate, is it?
This guy was available when Obummer made his last two picks, so, he was rejected by ObOzO twice before. What makes him acceptable this time? If he is that good now, President Trump can nominate him.
By my logic a President, not a Pres__ent, gets one pick at the start of his Presidency, since his non-pick choices have all been rejected. Vacancies on the Supreme Court remain until the next President, who may get two or three.
This has rewritten the definition of “act of futility”. WE will let Trump pick the replacement for Justice Scalia. There will be “litmus tests”!!! Thank you.
If Hillary wins, and no SCOTUS has been appointed, she’ll nominate Obozo.............................There is precedent......................William Howard Taft......................
December 19, 2001 The American Prospect listed Merrick Garland as a “First Tier” pick for SCOTUS should Al Gore be President
http://prospect.org/article/contenders-high-court
Outstanding!
Sheesh, I’d forgotten about Taft.
So, the question to the R’s becomes: do you take Garland now, or do you get behind Trump to make sure you don’t end up with an Obama nomination next year?
And the question to the RNC becomes: do you stop fighting Trump and focus on retaining the House and Senate so this appointment won’t be made by President Hillary and confirmed
under Speaker Reid?
Mike Lee for VP?
Garland is the perfect candidate for the actions you describe. He was confirmed 19 years ago, so there’s no doubt he has “evolved” on many important constitutional issues. A reasonable review of his positions, and answers to questions posed by Senators, could easily take a year and a half.
Lee endorsed Cruz so he must be a RINO..................[[s]
Are you nuts. Why even give this Marxist the time of day?
They’ll give him the famous GOP “fast track” instead.
Stand fast. Just ignore.
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.