Posted on 02/17/2016 9:20:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
What he said sounds much worse in The Hill’s account of his comments than the actual audio does.
The remarks from the North Carolina Republican are the first crack in GOP unity since Saturday's stunning news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, whose passing has put the tilt of the court in question. Scalia's successor seems likely to determine whether its majority will lean liberal or conservative…
"I think we fall into the trap, if we just simply say sight unseen -- we fall into the trap of being obstructionist," he said in comments first noted by Think Progress, a left-leaning website.
Tillis added that he would not support a liberal nominee, and argued that Republicans should use "every device available" to block someone who is "in the mold of President Obama's vision for America."
Wait, so does that mean Tillis would consider a nominee from the center-left, someone a little further to the right than Obama would ideally prefer to nominate? Because given the track record of center-right appointees, like William Brennan and David Souter, a center-left appointee is likely to “grow in office” into outright communism. Tillis’s opinion matters, too. He’s a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Chuck Grassley, raised the possibility yesterday of at least giving Obama’s nominee a hearing. If Tillis chose to vote with Democrats to confirm a center-lefty, the Committee would be deadlocked. If another Republican joined him in crossing the aisle, the nominee would pass the Committee and McConnell would suddenly be under immense pressure to give him or her a floor vote. And with centrist Republicans like Mark Kirk and Susan Collins quietly resisting the GOP’s “no hearing, no vote!” demands (so far), there’s at least a small chance that the nominee would clear 50 yays in a full confirmation vote. Republicans might be forced to filibuster the nomination despite having control of the Senate.
But wait, let’s back up. Would Tillis really consider a center-left nominee? Here’s a bit that The Hill left out:
"If he puts forth someone that we think is in the mold of President Obama's vision for America, then we'll use every device available to block that nomination," Tillis said. He advised the president to nominate someone who has "an almost identical resume and capabilities of Justice Scalia."
If that’s Tillis’s demand for considering a nominee on the merits, that Obama enrage his base by giving the other party precisely the sort of nominee they’d prefer, then there’s nothing to worry about here. Obama obviously won’t comply. The question is how far someone like Tillis would be willing to compromise if O was willing to compromise by nominating someone like, say, Sri Srinivasan, who clerked for Sandra Day O’Connor and appellate judge Harvie Wilkinson, both of whom were Reagan appointees, and then spent five years working for George W. Bush in the Solicitor General’s office. Would Srinivasan at least merit a hearing? If he gets a hearing, would Tillis insist on a Committee vote? If so, how would he vote? The degree to which conservatives are spooked about this vacancy, with even the barest hint of concessions from Republicans capable of starting a populist panic, is matched in my experience only by suspicions over immigration “compromises.” Why McConnell, Grassley, and Tillis would want to endure even a week of being accused of selling out by entertaining the idea of a hearing, especially when Trump stands to reap the benefits of Republican anger, is mystifying. Especially since there’s plenty of lefty hypocrisy, starting with Obama and Schumer, that can be used to justify stonewalling.
Speaking of which, Schumer is predicting a GOP cave:
“When the hard right doesn’t get its way, their immediate reaction is, ‘shut it down' — and the Republican leadership marches in lockstep. ?They did it in 2013 when they tried to shut down the government, and they’re doing it today with their attempt to shut down the Supreme Court,” Schumer said…
“Just as in 2013, when there was a huge public outcry and the Republican leadership had to back off, the same will happen now — and they will have to back off this extreme, partisan stance,” Schumer said.
I wouldn’t bet against him. Here’s an interesting question, though, that many righties probably haven’t considered: Does the left want Obama to make this appointment? Given the line the GOP has drawn here, O really does have to nominate someone who can plausibly be sold as centrist. Republicans might reject him/her anyway, but in that case Obama at least gets to argue that it was simple obstructionism that caused the nomination to fail and therefore the GOP should be punished in November. If he nominates a hard leftist, Republicans could torpedo the nomination and then plausibly claim that they did it on the merits, not out of obstructionism. All the more reason why we need a Republican president filling this vacancy next year, to prevent the crazy left for pushing another radical onto the Court. Which, if you’re a leftist, means that your only chance of filling this vacancy now is if O nominates someone much further to the right than you’d prefer — and meanwhile, if you’re simply patient for a year and all goes according to plan in November, you may have a new Democratic president and a new Democratic president in charge of this process next January. You can possibly get half a loaf now, in other words, or wait a year and a get either a whole loaf or nothing. How should a progressive bet?
All that is needed is dirt on a handful of Republican Senators. Simple.
“Obstructionist” isn’t a “trap.” It’s a very GOOD thing. It’s what you were elected to be - stop every evil thing.
Stand up for your constituents for a change. If you ask the Republican voters what they are more p*ssed off at, being called names by the liberals or their representatives caving in to the opposition party, guess what the answer would be? They're tired of the GOP politicians acting like democRATS and giving them what they want.
So get a backbone Tillis and obstruct Obama's nominee. If you don't, being called names will be the least of your problems when your reelection rolls around.
And they wonder why we are sending them Trump.
Yeah, I read it and don’t believe him. Sorry so cynical.
Tillis added that he would not support a liberal nominee, and argued that Republicans should use "every device available" to block someone who is "in the mold of President Obama's vision for America."
Am I the only one who bothered to read the article? He said that he would NOT,/b> support any liberal nominee, but that if obama wanted a nominee approved he should send the Senate someone just like Scalia.
At this moment of time in history, THAT IS YOUR JOB, YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!
You stand between Obama's and the left's wet dream of a liberal court steamrolling what remains of America, and the majority of people in America!
Go, be an obstructionist! We not only welcome it, WE INSIST ON IT!
Yes, I’m a Facebook member. Throwing it out. I went to Thom’s page and it is quite interesting. There are several posting along with mine that says “Obstructionist” is a badge of courage. I told him he needs to grow a pa!r and and have courage as the ones who signed our constitution. Said the party has left me and many others and its the reason for Donald Trumps rise. Not that it will help.
McConell can take all the arrows, don’t even bring it to the committee.
Tillis beat an actual conservative in NC who honors the Constitution due to GOPe money flooding the state in 2014. Brannon wouLd have been a much better senator and is now running against Burr another do nothing.
He's neither naive or drug addled. He's simply pointing out the only way obama is going to get a nominee through the Senate before the election. IOW...he won't. I'm not so sure that he won't but Tillis is NOT part of the problem here.
From the site you sent, here is an excerpt:
Tillis kept to a self-imposed term limit when, in 2014, he announced his retirement from the General Assembly. Tillis later announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, challenging incumbent senator Kay Hagan (D-NC). Tillis dominated a crowded republican field to capture the republican nomination. In a closely run general election, Tillis won while failing to capture a majority of the vote, besting Hagan by a mere 1.5 percent of votes cast.
In the primary, Tillis was the establishment’s choice, a distinction that appears to be validated with his voting record on major votes. While Tillis certainly voices the party line on major issues, his position on the finer points give pause. Even since his election Tillis has shifted on his position on the effort to defund Obamacare and even begun shifting his stance regarding holding the line on defense of traditional marriage.
Tillis has also grown adept at the tried and true Washington tactic of avoiding taking a stance on controversial issues, either sidestepping them all together or speaking to an issue through a spokesman rather than addressing it directly.
While Tillis’ victory in 2014 was a major component in Republican’s retaking the Senate, ultimately it is of limited value if Republicans do not stand up for their campaign promises. The jury is certainly still out on Tillis, but so far he seems to prefer politics to ideology no matter the issue at hand.
TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT — He is PRACTICALLY USELESS.
Indeed - ugh. Wonder which Republicans are on the Judiciary Committee that are up for reelection this year. I would think pressure, at minimum, would be on those.
Kill any and all nominees in the committee.
In fact, NO judges get through the Senate this year.
None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
If he’s that afraid to be a man he needs to step down from his office and lock himself up in some safe house for crazy people...
We can elect better.
No. Not a crack. There is no wall of opposition in which to have a crack. The Rerpublicans were cheered by the death of Scalia just as much as the Democrats were. It gives all of Husseins henchmen the opportunity to complete the Transformation of America. The Constitution will be truly a dead letter- all of it.
Whistling right past that graveyard. It is nto no avail. They are after all, Republicans.
Liberal Logic: If you stop somebody from killing someone else your an obstructionist
RINOs getting restless, good!
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.