There’s ample precedent for rejecting lame duck supreme court nominees

[PaintMyHouse]

And, you're fucked:

“Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people’s business in that crucially important body.” - Ronald Reagan

 

[Skylar]

And, you're fucked:

“Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people’s business in that crucially important body.” - Ronald Reagan

You mean the former union leader RINO who offered amnesty to illegals?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And, you're fucked:

“Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people’s business in that crucially important body.” - Ronald Reagan

You mean the former union leader RINO who offered amnesty to illegals?

Yep, but he got a Justice in the last year, from a Dem Senate no less...

 

[BluesLegend]

If Obama wasn't such a lame ass president who ignores the will of the people and tries to rule via executive order someone might be willing to work with him on a SCOTUS appointment, he blew that opportunity sucks to be him.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Making a recess appointment to the Supreme Court could end up being political suicide for the Democrats. I know the Dems don't care a hoot about tradition and history, not to mention fact, but even for Obama this would be a dangerous, shocking move.

Dems didn't scream when Chuck Schumer called for blocking any more Bush nominees to the Supreme Court--17 months before the end of Bush's time in office. Nope, not a peep, not a sound, nothing. And Dems had no qualms about blocking perfectly qualified nominees for appeals court vacancies solely on partisan ideological grounds and grossly smearing them in the process, including highly respected Hispanic and African-American judges (Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown).

But, oh my, to hear Dems now, you'd think the world would end if the Supreme Court went 11 months with eight justices so that the next president could select the nominee. Do they expect us to forget about their smearing and blocking of Robert Bork?

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama to Senate Republicans: Don't Do What I Did
February 16, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
4
264

Obama's official position is that he's a bipartisan moderate leader who is always willing to compromise over common sense solutions. This has as much to do with reality as his budgets. But after his insistence that it's just the mean Republicans who are being all partisan over Supreme Court nominations, Republicans pointed out that he had filibustered Justice Alito and voted against Justice Roberts.

Now Republicans gave him two free nominations of left-wing radicals, one of them his own lawyer, to the Supreme Court.

When asked about it, Obama rediscovers that partisanship is a two party issue, though he neglects to comment on his role in it, and effectively says that both sides are just pandering to their supporters.

...

So effectively Obama's message to Senate Republicans is not to do to his nominees, what he and his political allies worked to do to Bush's nominees.

Obama to Senate Republicans: Don't Do What I Did

 

[American_Jihad]

How Obama Denied Conservative Judges a Vote
Conservative nominees were blocked from 4 to 6 years
February 19, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

On a hot day in June, the grandson of a bank president took to the floor of the Senate to denounce the daughter of sharecroppers. "I feel compelled to rise on this issue to express, in the strongest terms, my opposition to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Circuit," Senator Obama said.

Born in segregated Alabama, Janice Rogers Brown had been a leftist like Obama before becoming conservative. When Obama rose to denounce the respected African-American jurist for her political views it had been almost a full two years since President Bush had nominated her in the summer of ’03.

Obama had arrived a few months earlier on his way to the White House and was eager to impress his left-wing backers with his political radicalism. He held forth complaining that Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who had gone to segregated schools and become the first African-American woman on the California Supreme Court, was guilty of “an unyielding belief in an unfettered free market.”

And he filibustered Judge Brown, along with other nominee, trying to deny them a vote.

“She has equated altruism with communism. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty,” he fumed.

Brown, who due to her family background knew far more of slavery than Obama, had indeed warned about the dangers of a powerful government. "In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate -- the drug of choice -- for multinational corporations and single moms, for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.”

Obama viewed her opposition to “our very own ‘Socialist revolution’” as disqualifying. Ideology was the only judicial test that ever mattered to him. Not scholarship. Not qualification. Not ability. He plots to force another radical nominee in place of the deceased Justice Scalia whom he had said would not have been nominated despite his “intellectual brilliance” because “he and I just disagree.”

When filibustering Justice Alito, Obama rejected the idea that the Senate should approve a judge just because he might be “intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy.” The key test was “ideology.” Justice Alito was an “an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist” who had the “the training and qualifications necessary to serve,” but he was from the wrong side of the political tracks.

And Obama put party over country and radical ideology over party.

...

Obama has illegally seized drastic amounts of power as part of putting party over country. And it would be deeply damaging to the rule of law if he were allowed to place yet another radical nominee who shares his preference for party over country on a Supreme Court divided between party and country.

How Obama Denied Conservative Judges a Vote

 

[Clementine]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

Obama and the Dems also tried to stop Bush's nominee. Always two sets of rules with them.

Obama wants to find the most liberal judge to appoint and the left embraces legislating from the bench. All judges should be there to uphold the constitution but we know that's not the case.

 

[francoHFW]

Nominees should get a hearing and a vote. End of story. When was the last time there was a 5-4 liberal court? Fecking a-hole dupes. Maybe we could catch up to the rest of the modern world again...instead of being an international joke and horror...

 

[Care4all]

Republicans’ Apples to Oranges Comparison on Supreme Court Nominees


Over the last couple of days, some Republicans, embarrassed by their partisan overreach in attempting to prevent the President from nominating a Supreme Court justice, have tried to use a 2007 speech I gave to justify their current obstruction. Sadly for them, even a quick perusal of the speech shows it provides no cover and that Leader McConnell is comparing apples to oranges.

What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up. There was no hint anywhere in the speech that there shouldn’t be hearings or a vote. Only that if after hearings and a vote, Democrats determined that the nominee was out of the mainstream and trying to hide it, they should have no qualms about voting no. Nor was there any hint that this idea that Democrats should oppose hard right ideologues should apply only in the fourth year of the president’s term. In fact, I said it should apply to this president, George W. Bush, or any future president whenever they nominated such a candidate.

In sum, my argument was based on hard right ideologues who did not follow precedent being approved to the court‎;‎ not on a president’s right to nominate, but on the Senate’s right to advise and consent once a full confirmation process, as outlined in the Constitution, was undertaken by the Senate.

Let me provide a little historical context. During President Bush’s term, Democrats had voted for Justice Roberts and allowed Justice Alito to go through — both of whom said they would, as Justice Roberts said, be umpires calling balls and strikes. Once they got on the court they immediately started moving the court in an ideological direction, and they have continued to do so. Decisions that dramatically deviated from precedent and pulled America in a strongly rightward direction, handed down with a 5–4 majority, became the hallmark of this court. Years later, it’s clear these justices have done exactly what they said they wouldn’t do: create an activist court. Under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has deviated from strongly held precedents on campaign finance issues, voting rights, choice, unions, environmental regulations, and many others.

Every single senator has a right to vote no on any given nominee. I’ve opposed some nominees who are out of the mainstream, my friends on the other side of the aisle have opposed some nominees they believe are out of the mainstream, and this pattern may well continue. But the wisdom of the Founding Fathers dictates that we should go through a full vetting and confirmation process so that we and the nation can determine whether these candidates are out of the mainstream even in this ideological era. Republicans are attempting to shirk their duty in a way that would be simply unprecedented in our nation’s history.

Everything I said in 2007 holds true today:It is the Senate’s duty to hold hearings and vote on the nominee based on the merits. And it is fair to evaluate a nominee based on his or her record.
I believe in this case the President will nominate a mainstream candidate who can and should earn bipartisan support. But whether Republicans agree or not with my evaluation of whichever candidate the president puts forward, they have a constitutional obligation to hold hearings, conduct a full confirmation process, and vote on the nominee based on his or her merits. That’s what I said then, that’s what I believe now, and that’s what I hope happens in the months ahead.

In short, Senator McConnell’s attempt to justify his unprecedented obstruction with my speech is completely misleading and patently false.

If you want to revisit the 2007 speech, click here.

so many lies being told by the right wingers on Schumer's speech...click above and hear it for yourselves....

What the republican leadership and candidates did was stick their foot in their mouths, God stupefied them, so we all saw their attempt to obstruct right up front....

WHY OH WHY they could not have simply kept their mouths shut on denying any justice appointment from Obama before even hearing a name and before even having hearings to vet them, and just let the nomination and hearings go through and THEN reject them, was just simply stupid and showed the world, just the scummy, partisan, obstructionist people they are....

3 cheers for them loosing their seats in November.

 

[Skylar]

Making a recess appointment to the Supreme Court could end up being political suicide for the Democrats. I know the Dems don't care a hoot about tradition and history, not to mention fact, but even for Obama this would be a dangerous, shocking move.

Dems didn't scream when Chuck Schumer called for blocking any more Bush nominees to the Supreme Court--17 months before the end of Bush's time in office. Nope, not a peep, not a sound, nothing. And Dems had no qualms about blocking perfectly qualified nominees for appeals court vacancies solely on partisan ideological grounds and grossly smearing them in the process, including highly respected Hispanic and African-American judges (Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown).

Chuck Schumer wasn't the Senate Majority leader nor did he speak for his party or fellow democratic senators on the issue. Mitch is the Senate Majority leader. And with the exception of one Republican senator, he does speak for his party and fellow republican senators.

Are you telling me you can't see any difference in those two scenarios?

A rational person could.

 

[kaz]

Are Republicans good at weighing public opinion? Not lately.

Please. Democrats only care about "pubic opinion" when the public agrees with you. When they don't, you don't give a shit. For example, you know, Obamacare...

 

[kaz]

Republicans’ Apples to Oranges Comparison on Supreme Court Nominees


Over the last couple of days, some Republicans, embarrassed by their partisan overreach in attempting to prevent the President from nominating a Supreme Court justice, have tried to use a 2007 speech I gave to justify their current obstruction. Sadly for them, even a quick perusal of the speech shows it provides no cover and that Leader McConnell is comparing apples to oranges.

What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up. There was no hint anywhere in the speech that there shouldn’t be hearings or a vote. Only that if after hearings and a vote, Democrats determined that the nominee was out of the mainstream and trying to hide it, they should have no qualms about voting no. Nor was there any hint that this idea that Democrats should oppose hard right ideologues should apply only in the fourth year of the president’s term. In fact, I said it should apply to this president, George W. Bush, or any future president whenever they nominated such a candidate.

In sum, my argument was based on hard right ideologues who did not follow precedent being approved to the court‎;‎ not on a president’s right to nominate, but on the Senate’s right to advise and consent once a full confirmation process, as outlined in the Constitution, was undertaken by the Senate.

Let me provide a little historical context. During President Bush’s term, Democrats had voted for Justice Roberts and allowed Justice Alito to go through — both of whom said they would, as Justice Roberts said, be umpires calling balls and strikes. Once they got on the court they immediately started moving the court in an ideological direction, and they have continued to do so. Decisions that dramatically deviated from precedent and pulled America in a strongly rightward direction, handed down with a 5–4 majority, became the hallmark of this court. Years later, it’s clear these justices have done exactly what they said they wouldn’t do: create an activist court. Under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has deviated from strongly held precedents on campaign finance issues, voting rights, choice, unions, environmental regulations, and many others.

Every single senator has a right to vote no on any given nominee. I’ve opposed some nominees who are out of the mainstream, my friends on the other side of the aisle have opposed some nominees they believe are out of the mainstream, and this pattern may well continue. But the wisdom of the Founding Fathers dictates that we should go through a full vetting and confirmation process so that we and the nation can determine whether these candidates are out of the mainstream even in this ideological era. Republicans are attempting to shirk their duty in a way that would be simply unprecedented in our nation’s history.

Everything I said in 2007 holds true today:It is the Senate’s duty to hold hearings and vote on the nominee based on the merits. And it is fair to evaluate a nominee based on his or her record.
I believe in this case the President will nominate a mainstream candidate who can and should earn bipartisan support. But whether Republicans agree or not with my evaluation of whichever candidate the president puts forward, they have a constitutional obligation to hold hearings, conduct a full confirmation process, and vote on the nominee based on his or her merits. That’s what I said then, that’s what I believe now, and that’s what I hope happens in the months ahead.

In short, Senator McConnell’s attempt to justify his unprecedented obstruction with my speech is completely misleading and patently false.

If you want to revisit the 2007 speech, click here.

so many lies being told by the right wingers on Schumer's speech...click above and hear it for yourselves....

What the republican leadership and candidates did was stick their foot in their mouths, God stupefied them, so we all saw their attempt to obstruct right up front....

WHY OH WHY they could not have simply kept their mouths shut on denying any justice appointment from Obama before even hearing a name and before even having hearings to vet them, and just let the nomination and hearings go through and THEN reject them, was just simply stupid and showed the world, just the scummy, partisan, obstructionist people they are....

3 cheers for them loosing their seats in November.

Republicans decided not to weaken cloture in the Senate because the idiots thought then they could continue to use it against Democrats when Democrats got back in power. When Democrats got back in power, they did it themselves and screwed the Republicans with it.

Republicans need to block another Communist from joining the dictatorship that rules America. There is zero benefit to them to not do that

 

[American_Jihad]

Senate Dems Kept Court Seat Vacant for Entire Bush Administration
February 19, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

In previous posts, I discussed some of the outrageous Senate shenanigans by Democrats during the Bush years. Like blocking Judge Owens for 4 years. And holding one seat hostage for six years through three nominees.

Bush had nominated Judge Pickering in ’01 and he was blocked in committee, falsely smeared as a racist and then filibustered by Senate Democrats to deny him the “up and down vote” that they are now busy clamoring for. After three years, Pickering gave up and was replaced by Wallace, who was also blocked by Senate Democrats for a year and denied a vote. Six years later, Bush was still trying with Judge Southwick who had served in Iraq. He was also denied an “up and down” vote until the end of 2007.

If you thought six years was bad, Senate Democrats actually kept one seat vacant throughout Bush's entire two terms so that Obama could renominate a Clinton nominee.

After Judge Murnaghan, a liberal judge on the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, died, Clinton's attempt to fill the seat fell afoul of the Thurmond Rule, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, against judicial nominations in the last months of an election year. Murnaghan had died in August 2000. The election was a few months away. Under the Thurmond Rule, this would be Bush's seat to fill.

...

So when you hear Democrats and the media wailing about "obstructionism" and how wrong it is to keep a court seat open for a year until the White House changes, remember that they kept a seat open for nine years, two presidential terms, until the White House changed hands.

Senate Dems Kept Court Seat Vacant for Entire Bush Administration

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama's Supreme Court Strategy is Keeping the Story Alive
February 25, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

...

This is, in short, what teenage girls call 'drama'. And Obama is President Drama. He knows how to do the Reality TV thing better than Trump.

As I wrote before, the only way to go is to cut off the story's oxygen. That means breaking the cycle. No reactions. No variations. No keeping the story alive. Take a firm position and maintain it.

If McConnell sticks to it, then this dies. Obama can keep throwing out names, but if no one bites, then it's pointless. Eventually he'll have to choose a fake nominee. Democrats can hold fake hearings. But you can only keep a meaningless story alive for so long if it's not going anywhere. Without Republican reactions, this becomes hollow theater that even the media will quickly abandon. If however the GOP plays into Obama's hands and we go down the road of reacting, then debating, then considering, it'll be all over but the shouting and the angry emails to Congress.

Obama is confident that he's going to get his way. But the bottom line is that most Americans don't care. Obama needs the complicity of Republicans to change that.

Obama's Supreme Court Strategy is Keeping the Story Alive

 

[Searcher44]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

From your link, "Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees."

Lengthy vacancies don't count as precedent if in the end the President stalled ends up getting a nominee confirmed. The first example of a President being stalled was John Tyler. He finally got a nominee confirmed in the last month of his Presidency. That's a precedent for Obama getting a nominee through, not the other way around. How many of the rest of the Presidents your link sites got nominees confirmed? Did you check out your own link, or just the headline?

 

[HenryBHough]

Facts remain:

An Republican senator who caves on this and who is up for re-election has a chance of political survival provided the primaries are past when he/she caves. Anything beyond the political is, of course, an open question.

Any such senator not on the ballot this time will be primaried out of ever running again at the next opportunity.

Of course any Republican senator NOT sufficiently intelligent to realize that should be committed to a laughing academy for his/her own protection.

And that's just the way it is so suck it up.

 

[JQPublic1]

In 2007 Chuck Schumer Urged Democrats To BLOCK BUSH SCOTUS NOMINEES (VIDEO)
February 15, 2016 by Aleister

As usual, when the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats sing a different tune. Today, they want Obama to pick Scalia’s replacement. Back in 2007, things were different.

CNS News reports:

Schumer in ’07: ‘We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court’

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is describing current GOP calls to let the next president make a Supreme Court nomination “obstructionism”, but in 2007 Schumer said, “I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito,” and recommended the Senate, “should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”


...

In 2007 Chuck Schumer Urged Democrats To BLOCK BUSH SCOTUS NOMINEES (VIDEO) - Progressives Today

How did THAT work out?

 

[Searcher44]

Obama's Supreme Court Strategy is Keeping the Story Alive
February 25, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

...

This is, in short, what teenage girls call 'drama'. And Obama is President Drama. He knows how to do the Reality TV thing better than Trump.

As I wrote before, the only way to go is to cut off the story's oxygen. That means breaking the cycle. No reactions. No variations. No keeping the story alive. Take a firm position and maintain it.

If McConnell sticks to it, then this dies. Obama can keep throwing out names, but if no one bites, then it's pointless. Eventually he'll have to choose a fake nominee. Democrats can hold fake hearings. But you can only keep a meaningless story alive for so long if it's not going anywhere. Without Republican reactions, this becomes hollow theater that even the media will quickly abandon. If however the GOP plays into Obama's hands and we go down the road of reacting, then debating, then considering, it'll be all over but the shouting and the angry emails to Congress.

Obama is confident that he's going to get his way. But the bottom line is that most Americans don't care. Obama needs the complicity of Republicans to change that.

Obama's Supreme Court Strategy is Keeping the Story Alive

Most of the Republican scheming to short circuit Obama's tenure by being the party of "no" went on behind closed doors, in secret. Wonder what makes them think it's a good idea to do their dirty deed out in the open this time? It's going to backfire one way or another, the most likely scenario is that the next democratic President will get to fill this vacancy and a couple of others. Then the R's will be gnashing their teeth and wailing in the hallways. They'll be wishing they took this opportunity to let a malleable Obama get a right leaning nominee like Sandoval thru.

 

[JQPublic1]

Facts remain:

An Republican senator who caves on this and who is up for re-election has a chance of political survival provided the primaries are past when he/she caves. Anything beyond the political is, of course, an open question.

Any such senator not on the ballot this time will be primaried out of ever running again at the next opportunity.

Of course any Republican senator NOT sufficiently intelligent to realize that should be committed to a laughing academy for his/her own protection.

And that's just the way it is so suck it up.

Caves in? I am not sure there has been a consensus among republican senators to Block any nominee Obama puts forward.