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.
Take the bait. Tell Jugears we’d be delighted to advise and perhaps consent on your nominee. Start the process of hearings. Make the process an endless referendum on every conceivable topic imaginable that would bear on the campaign. Daily headlines and discussions...quotes about the importance of the constitution, reminders of the treatment of Bork and Thomas.... A show trial that would make the old Russians blush. Make it last from now until past November. If there is any merit whatsoever to the man and (god forbid) a leftist gets elected...put him through!
If he is the center right possibility I have heard he might be. We have, after all, had some disasters with so-called “iron clad conservative” appointments and even a center right or moderate would beat whoever the left jams in there, should we lose the WH and/or enough of the down ticket house or senate seats to be weakened. We get a much older than usual nominee, and the possibility that he comes down at least center.
I say do it.
“Why Mr. Obama, we think it was uncommonly even handed, given your history of leftist trickery, to make this nomination!” OK, we don’t come right out and say it in so many words, but we do say it in deed.
If we win the election and maintain control ... hey! Thanks for your time and trouble, but we’ll have to consider this until February. Then we can take the measure of the new President’s alternate proposal, in the event it is a lefty and we all KNOW what that will look like.
We win in either event or at worse, come out better than we might if we roll the dice. Why not advise and consent on our own terms? Then the lib press can STFU about how unfair we are. Well, we know they will find fault about “dragging it out, but they gotta earn their payoffs somehow.
We have the ball with plenty of time on the clock. Why not use it?
Another asterisk...
Mike Lee for president.
Me: “At this time.”? Wait til mitchee gets the red phone call. Don’t want to be remembered as an obstructionist and racis’ do we?
No, do not take any action, be the party of No for once and stand by it.
Why aren’t GOP and conservatives in the media, talking about how the Democrats so thoroughly politicized and blew up the confirmation process, with the Robert Bork hearings, and the Clarence Thomas hearings??
Why isn’t anyone talking about how Biden and Schumer in the past, said that no judges should be confirmed in a presidential election year??
Why isn’t anyone talking about how GOP “obstruction” is simply adhering to the Democrats own criteria as to how a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year should be handled??
Why do we have to listen to Obama pontificate about the constitution and responsibilities of people under the constittuion, when his party has so completely politicized a process which he now says should be above politics??
And just how liberal is this judge Garland??? It’s hard to believe Obama would nominate anyone who isn’t a reliable liberal 5th vote on the Supreme Court.
Bill Clinton appointee Merrick Garland is an anti-second amendment lefty
Cooke on Scalia Replacement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FiMW4oVW8
GOP needs to stand their ground and they have every right to do it
Seems the GOP has gotten a spinal injection of Trump.
There will be no wobbling on this. ZERO!!
The judge arrived with a fork in him already.
!!!
I hope you’re right. And I wish my confidence in Congress was higher.
Judiciary Chairman Grassley has made the points you describe on an almost daily basis. It just hasn’t been covered much. Nice that Lee is being covered.
Then reject him. Not holding meetings is not advising or consenting. It's ignoring. The only reason the GOP is not holding hearings is that they don't think they can find 51 Senators to vote against him. A true statement on McConnell's leadership.
“Why aren’t GOP and conservatives in the media, talking about how the Democrats so thoroughly politicized and blew up the confirmation process, with the Robert Bork hearings, and the Clarence Thomas hearings??”
Who is gonna deliver the story?
Reference it every 5 mins during the confirmation hearing that can stretch from here to whenever. Say it a thousand times for a year. It might get through. Then confirm it or deny him...when it is our pleasure.
“Why I remember when...” Keep your powder dry, boys. We’ll kill them in the trees and push them into the river and take them out to drown.
Do we have to blow every chance we get to have people walk away saying “the Rats got outfoxed?”
There is no Constitutional Authority to make the Senate hold hearings if they do not want to. They can withhold ‘Advise and Consent’ as long as they wish..........................
If this guy headed the Oklahoma investigation and avoided any terrorist ties and dismissed info relating to possible Muslim looking men in the area he is a political hack.
“GOP needs to stand their ground and they have every right to do it”
And miss an opportunity to show everyone we can beat the goddam libs at their own game. We’re blowing it.
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.