"Wha...what?! And be called 'obstructionists'??? That's not how it's done around here!"
Posted on 02/16/2016 2:00:42 PM PST by Bratch
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is leaving open the possibility of holding a hearing for President Barack Obama's choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, amid signs of uncertainty about how Republicans would treat a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he backs Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's view that Obama's successor should make the nomination of a lifetime appointment. But Grassley didn't rule out holding confirmation hearings and a vote by his panel on an Obama selection.
"I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision," Grassley said Tuesday in a conference call with Iowa radio reporters. "In other words, take it a step at a time."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I don’t see how we can avoid having hearings. The democrats were determined not to vote for Bork - but they still held hearings . . . just so they could crucify the nominee.
I believe this is an excellent opportunity for the judiciary committee to tell the American people just how unAmerican the nomineee is.
“Explain to me again why we have an opposition party.”
Can I borrow that for my tag line?
Precisly
When was the 18-month time period you mentioned, please?
It was at the end of GWB’s presidency, from 2007 thru 2008. Shumer was speaking July 2007.
Thank you.
This is crazy. He is 82. hatch is 81. Why on Earth on old people making these decisions? why don’t they retire?
Bravo and thank you.
I was tempted to agree with many others on this thread about at least holding hearings, if only for exposing the prior partisan actions of the nominee and thus their lack of qualification for the bench.
Your words, however, reminded me that politics is a blood sport, not a gentleman's sparring contest. (If only there were more street fighters in the R ranks.)
Not only that, it describes a great political position to hold when the D's and the MSM try to intimidate the fragile R leadership into taking action. It reminds one somewhat of the Contract with America.
They don't need to. Harry Reid unilaterally changed the closure rules to eliminate filibusters of all presidential appointments except for the Supreme Court. If there had been any Supreme Court vacancies then Reid would have eliminated filibusters for Supreme Court nominations as well.
If Hillary is elected President and the Democrats retake the Senate the first thing that Senate Majority Leader Chuckie Schemer will do is unilaterally eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments.
This CANNOT happen!
My first action of choice is not to entertain any nominations. My second action of choice is let the guy put up somebody and hold hearings for 11 mos and then vote no. Or just decide not to vote at all.
Well of course! That's what GOP means now: Give Obama Power
The Republicans keep playing defense instead of offense. Stack the Court with more members. 9 is not a magic number. More Justices will dilute the individual votes.
You're talking about today's Republican Party? Well, we do. It depends on what you mean by "opposition party". Party in opposition to who?
Them?
Surely you jest!
Now you're talking!
Really? If the Democrats win both the White House and control of the Senate, they will claim a huge mandate. They won't need 60 seats in such a situation. The Republicans will run for cover like whipped puppies. The normal cast of wimp-out candidates will be ready to accept the "will" of the electorate. Now members of the minority, do you really expect Graham, McCain, McConnell, and their ilk to take political heat to keep a liberal off the High Court?
There is substantial precedent in supreme court nominees that you do not deviate too far from the politics of the justice being replaced. All parties recognize that something close to a balance is necessary.
Do you really think that Hillary or Bernie Sanders will feel compelled to follow "precedent" after a big victory? They'd have the mantle of a mandate and would be pushing their agenda for all it's worth. In addition, the Democrats would likely be up in arms already over Obama's choice not being considered and would be in no mood for compromise.
Bingo!
Feel free to use that as your tagline.
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.