Posted on 02/13/2016 8:29:15 PM PST by upchuck
Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:
In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.
There's no excuse for this. It's putting partisan politics above the Constitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.
And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.
[Request to further this via signing a petition removed.]
Thanks,
Democrats
No this is not partisan politics. The people quickly realized that Obama is a very bad president. They elected GOP majorities in the house and senate to stop Obama. The Senate has a duty to respect the people’s wishes. If we, the people, wanted another leftist on the S/C we would have elected a liberal senate, we did not. I hope these traitorous idiots we did elect will not be so afraid of the label “partisan” that they will give us another wretched democrat.
Since when do Dems care about the rule of law? Haaa!
Corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, state sovereignty-ignoring Washington cartel senators probably want to confirm a likewise state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice. They likely want this justice to steal not only legislative branch powers, but also 10th Amendment-protected state legislative powers, and use these powers to not only expand the corrupt federal governments powers outside the framework of the Constitution, but also to establish new, unconstitutional, vote-winning, federal civil rights from the bench.
Precedent. No lame duck noms.
The Constitution gives the Senate the right to confirm a nominee, but it is not required to. For the Dems to say that the Senate exercising its Constitutional prerogative is putting g itself “above the Constitution” is nonsense.
Hillary and Bernie both say there should be a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee, I agree, lets get one.
Remember Miguel Estrada...
If you hold the Constitution in such reverence, Rats, you'll applaud the nomination of a strict adherent to the plain wording of the Constitution.
But, you won't because you don't.
Schedule means not agreeing on thier candidates
It's putting partisan politics above the Constitution and the rule of law...
A two-word answer: Robert Bork.
And I’m sure the dem senate would block it.
Obama will have litmus tests, so should we.
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.