Posted on 03/17/2016 9:53:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Washington, D.C., should host an Olympics for finger-pointing. There would be no shortage of accomplished practitioners. Start with President Barack Obama, who, in introducing Judge Merrick Garland as his choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the big bench, asked the Senate "to give him a fair hearing and then an up-or-down vote." He told senators: "If you don't, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate's constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics -- everything."
You'd never guess Obama not only voted against Chief Justice John Roberts but also supported a filibuster -- that is, he opposed an up-or-down vote -- to thwart the confirmation of Samuel Alito in 2005. Hillary Clinton also opposed Roberts and supported an Alito filibuster. Both Roberts and Alito won confirmation with Democratic support -- which tells you they were qualified but not immune to the sort of partisan opposition that Obama now finds distasteful.
On the other side of the aisle, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor to promise he'd oppose an election-year confirmation in deference to the "Biden rule." (In 1992, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden said he would oppose an election-year GOP nominee.)
Judicial nominations are political by design, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett told me.
"Judges are picked by a politically elected president and confirmed by a politically elected Senate."
Because this is an election year, Obama chose a qualified and non-extreme federal judge with probably a shorter life span than his other potential nominees. The conservative Barnett described Garland, a former classmate, as "probably the most reasonable nominee a Democratic president could make." The New York Times places Garland to the left of all living justices, save Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, and also reports that a Garland confirmation "could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years."
With the ideological bent of the court in the balance and a presidential election months away, there simply is too much at stake. "Nobody in Washington, D.C., no living soul, believes that the Democrats would not be doing the exact same thing the Republicans are doing for the same reason" if the tables were turned, quoth Barnett.
Having also opposed Roberts and supported an Alito filibuster, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., knows he isn't in a strong position to scold the GOP leadership. So the craven Schumer has come up with a line about how the Senate owes Garland and the American people hearings. Hearings for someone the Senate is bound to reject? Why not try waterboarding? I cannot think of a more textbook example of political circus.
There is a political risk to the GOP opposition. If a Democrat wins the White House in November, then she probably will nominate someone who is further to the left than Garland -- not to mention younger. But if Republican senators want to hand the Supreme Court to the Democrats, then why would Republican voters support them?
FU Barry
Who listens to that creep, he does what he wants when he wants and as a self appointed “king” he makes his own laws. WHY is he still out there breathing air?
Bump, BTTT, You got it. Right on.
‘Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett’......’ the conservative Barnett’
This guy is a Conservative? I didn’t realize there were ANY Conservative law professors at Georgetown.
D1 to Obama...
...and the camel you rode in on!
STFU 0Bozo!!!
How does another Beyer type nominee, who is just far left rather than extreme left, restore that balance?
I sure don’t
You said it.
Maybe Saunders this he is conservative because he is a senior fellow of the Cato Institute?
Maybe Saunders thinks he is because he is a Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute.
309 days to go.
this =thinks
This is his announcement of even greater tyranny to come.
Weird. What mindset does it take to pose with your head like that? It’s like a movie.
A: 7 YEARS
Who's in a hurry NOW?
“What is this crap about balance in the court. There is no balance. With the current court we have”
You are absolutely right.
When the vote really counts, when our freedom and liberty is on
the line this was how they vote.
Example ; Obamacare
Chief Justice John Roberts voted FOR
Sonia Sotomayor voted FOR
Stephen Breyer voted FOR
Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted FOR
Elena Kagan voted FOR
Anthony Kennedy voted AGAINST
Samuel Alito voted AGAINST
Antonin Scalia voted AGAINST
Clarence Thomas voted AGAINST
The court was already majority liberal.
“What mindset does it take to pose with your head like that?”
The mindset of an absolute ass.
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.
