Posted on 06/29/2018 1:17:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defended himself Thursday evening against claims that he is being hypocritical by pushing to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the upcoming elections.
After Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, McConnell said on the Senate floor that legislators "will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor this fall," which prompted an outcry from Democrats, who accused the majority leader of hypocrisy for not waiting until after the elections as he did when former President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in 2016.
"Sen. McConnell set the new standard by giving the American people their say in the upcoming election before Court vacancies are filled," Democratic Minority Whip Dick Durbin said in a statement, according to CNN.
"With so much at stake for the people of our country, the U.S. Senate must be consistent and consider the President's nominee once the new Congress is seated in January."
"What I said in 2016 is that we shouldn't fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year. The last time I looked, there's no presidential election this year," McConnell said on Fox News Thursday.
"And, in fact, three current members of the U.S. Supreme Court were completed in election years, non-presidential election years. And the president's nominee to the Kennedy vacancy will be confirmed in a non-presidential election election year," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
No need to defend it. Just do it.
“No, their strategy is to attract more radical hard left activists”
I think you meant create. Their plan is to create more hard left activists.
“When Gorsuch was nominated, the Democrats launched a filibuster, which led to the nuclear option, doing away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.
If they had held off the filibuster then, then the filibuster rule would still be alive, and they might have had some leverage here.”
But....but...all things Trump must be #resist and #woke. So they were forced by their Frankensteins Monster into an unforced error.
This is the real “INSURANCE POLICY”
As Bark Oblasma has said, “ erections have consequences.”
The pychopomp wants to swerve us again!
I think the biggest Miscalculation was Ginsburg and Breyer not retiring during Obama’s term. They thought Hillary was such a sure thing that it wasn’t a risk at all.I can't imagine Ginsburg making it through Trump's first term. If he wins re-election, the court shifts decidedly right. Because, you then might expect to replace Breyer as well. On top of that, Thomas is expected to retire fairly soon, and replacing him with another conservative who is younger, will help ensure the majority for many years.
51 - 5 = 46
46 - 54 is not a tie.
Make no mistake, Mitch realizes this is the most important issue for the country. For decades, the courts have been the lever of power used by the leftists to further their criminal agenda against the US citizenry. Even when the demrats lose power in legislation, it only takes a few unelected judges to override anything the republicans might pass.
All demrats will vote no. What was the vote on Gorsuch?
3 dems for Gorsuch
...but this is a midterm year with vulnerable dems in red states
My math is 51- McCain = 50, if Turtle can pressure the other four to play ball, although I doubt he will be successful, in which your math is correct.
It is sad to see censorship on this site, while allowing the worst leftists publications full access for their antiamerican citizen propaganda. The fact is, the left’s publications are turning many freepers against proven allies.
I wonder what they can threaten Flake with to make him toe the line. Maybe whatever made him not run again.
>> Any court packing attempt today would require a President of demonic charisma to push it through Congress <<
Not so sure. I think it would only require 218 votes in the House, 50 votes plus the VP in the Senate, and a willing (even if passive) POTUS.
OK, let’s test your hypothesis: after Pres. Trump’s nominee is confirmed, watch to see if the ever loonier libs introduce bills to add additional justices to the Court to achieve what they will call “ideological balance”.
They don’t have to succeed for your theory to be proven correct. We heard calls to abolish the Electoral College after Trump’s victory, so Court-packing wouldn’t be considered extreme. If a Court-packing bill appears in the next session, then your case is made.
Except....FDR’s court-packing attempt failed eighty years ago in 1937. The New Deal was his baby and he pushed hard to get more seats on the Court.
Have there been any attempts since then? I don’t know.
>> If a Court-packing bill appears in the next session, then your case is made <<
Not at all.
And in fact, I’m not trying to make a “case” of the matter. All I said originally is that the theoreticians of the Left are beginning to moot the idea of “packing” the SCOTUS, just as Lincoln did successfully and just as FDR tried but failed.
On the other hand, I’m sure these leftist professors and legal mavens know that it would be totally counterproductive to introduce legislation until/unless they control all three branches.
In the meantime, it may not be too long before an article appears in an Ivy League law school’s student-edited “Review” to explain in great detail how a new packing job can be justified and executed, once the Dhims are back in full power.
Thomas is getting really old, the next president will likely replace him if Trump doens’t
Although the odds favor her being in reasonably good health for some time (she seems to for the most part be managing her Type 1 diabetes well) Justice Sotomayor appears to be a bit of a risk for the left, too...
I thought the same thing.
He seems very passionate about getting SCOTUS picks through, but not so much on everything else :)
Maybe even he realizes that everything else is small potatoes compared to having the SC firmly in the hands of those that believe the constitution is dead :)
Long live the dead Constitution.
If the founders wanted it interpreted, they would have added an asterisk and then at the bottom put
*Subject to interpretation.
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.