Posted on 02/16/2016 4:14:18 PM PST by SeekAndFind
President Barack Obama respond this afternoon to promises by Senate Republicans to not allow a vote o his nominee to replace recently-deceased pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama doesn't care about the fact that he filibustered Justice Samuel Alito's nomination in an attempt to prevent the Senate from voting to confirm him, he demanded that Republicans allow a vote on his nominee.
After Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate will not take up a vote on a replacement for deceased pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the presidential election.
Such a promise prevents pro-abortion President Barack Obama from selecting a third pro-abortion Supreme Court justice to follow Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan, both of whom are thoroughly committed to unlimited abortions and upholding Roe v. Wade.
The Washington Examiner reported the comments Obama made in a press conference:
"The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now," Obama told reporters in California. "When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is to nominate someone; the Senate is to consider that someone and either they disapprove of that someone, or that someone is elevate to the Supreme Court," Obama said from Rancho Mirage, Calif., where he was spent two days meeting with leaders of Southeast Asian nations.
"This is the Supreme Court--the highest court in our land," he said. "It is the one court where we would expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day politics, and this would be the opportunity for senators to do their job."
Obama said it's unfair to compare his attempt to deny a vote on Justice Alito, who pro-life groups applauded for upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, with what Senate Republicans are pledging to do.
"I think what's fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party," he told reporters in California. "This has become just one more extension of politics."
"And, there are times where folks are in the Senate, and they're thinking… is this going to cause me problems in a primary, is this going to cause me problems with supporters of mine, and so people take strategic decisions," he said.
"But, what is also true is, Justice Alito is on the bench right now. I think that, historically, if you look at it, regardless of what votes particular senators have taken, there's been a basic consensus, a basic understanding, that the Supreme Court's different."
Democrats will undoubtedly push for the nomination and a confirmation vote for a new left-wing judge.
"The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said on Twitter. "The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible."
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee took a similar line.
"I hope that no one will use this sad news to suggest that the President or the Senate should not perform its constitutional duty," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Saturday. "The American people deserve to have a full functioning Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons. It is only February. The President and the Senate should get to work without delay to nominate, consider and confirm the next justice to serve on the Supreme Court."
Leading pro-life advocates agree the Senate should not vote on Scalia's replacement until after a new president has been selected.
Americans United for Life PresidentCharmaine Yoest told LifeNews, "His loss is tragic, and we hope that when it comes time for the Senate to vote on his replacement, that a worthy successor who can pick up his banner can be found after the election."
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel: "With the passing of Justice Scalia, the future of the High Court and the future of America is hanging in the balance. The Senate must not confirm any nominee to the Supreme Court from President Obama. The Senate must hold off any confirmation until the next President is seated. Unfortunately the presidential debates have been more theater and less substance about the real issues surrounding the Supreme Court. The election of the next President has now taken on even greater importance. The future of the Supreme Court and America now depends on the Senate blocking any nominee by President Obama and the people electing the right person to occupy the White House."
One of the names being bandied about today by experts on the high court is pro-abortion Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Don’t the GOP always cave? It is just a matter of time until they do.
HAHAHAHAHA! No.
The pubbies better hold fast....or there will be a price.
You are right on all fronts. At least I hope they make him go through at least 3 candidates before giving the ok. At least get back for the Bork thing.
Obama has ignored the Constitution for 7 years and now he tells us what the Constitution says? Just say no.
If they dont filibuster this putz they aren’t worth sending any of them back.
FUBO.
Now.
Next week.
And forever.
Convoluted? Yes. Is he right about Senate voting. Yes.
And they’d better vote for the American people and not just give this guy a pass that would be a legacy of Constitutional shredding.
I see why so many posts are incoherent lately on FR. I been drinking on my last post. Apparently, so have many of you.
Actually they did stick one time I remember - Obamacare. Not one republican vote. Pure democrat madness. Come on repubs,
,you can do this.
>>”I hope that no one will use this sad news to suggest that the President or the Senate should not perform its constitutional duty,”
He hasn’t done his duty since Day 1. And since he isn’t impeached for F&F and Benghazi, Congress isn’t doing theirs either. So why worry about starting now?
Whiney little Beeotch.
At that point in time, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. They did not need them.
Saw libs online today saying that it was wrong for Reagan to nominate a justice in 1986 because it was an "election year". Well every 2 years is by that measure. They also took him to task for going through the approval of a nominee in 1988. Of course he'd BEEN nominating candidates since 1987 and the Democrat Senate kept voting them down.
Facts and history don't matter to the Stalinist Left.
What if Obama nominates Ted Cruz? Would Cruz decline the nomination? Would the senate confirm him if he accepted?
Call his bluff.
Or what, a pillow on your head? A drone strike?
Regardless of whom, the Senate would never confirm him!
Shut the hell up, you misbegotten cur. Crawl back under the fly-ridden pile of fresh manure which is your natural habitat--and don't track any of it on the White House floor.
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.