The NY Times Editorial Board actually makes a few salient points in their editorial, but, it is the lead that should be noticed first
When Antonin Scalia was named by President Ronald Reagan to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1986, the Senate considered the nomination for 85 days, then voted to confirm him. The tally was 98-0.
That unanimity was by no means a measure of widespread agreement with Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy. Rather it was the Senate’s customary acknowledgment — at least until recently — that the president had fulfilled his constitutional duty and selected a clearly qualified person for the post.
It is by no means a coincidence that the NYTEB starts off this way: they are demanding that the GOP led Congress rubber-stamp whomever Obama nominates, who will certainly be a hardcore leftist applying their political beliefs, activism, and international law in deciding cases, rather than American law and our Constitution.
Thirty years later, and within hours of the news that Justice Scalia had died, Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, rejected that practice outright. It would not matter if President Obama nominated the ghost of Ronald Reagan himself, they appeared to suggest — there will be no confirmation hearings until Mr. Obama has packed his bags and moved out of the White House. Mr. Obama promptly replied that he planned to send a nomination to Congress shortly.
On this, the NYTEB might have a point: the GOP Senate should give the person a hearing, all the better to expose just how unqualified and left leaning the person is, then take a vote and say “No.”
Senators are free to vote yes or no on any nominee. But not to vote at all is an enormous insult and grave disservice to millions of Americans awaiting justice.
It might make sense if the left wing judges were interested in applying the Constitution to their votes. Rarely do any of the current ones vote against their left wing Social Justice Warrior beliefs. That said, there is precedent to delay delay delay. We’ll see what happens.
The hypocrisy from the left is astounding. The New York Times editorial, January 26, 2006, on the confirmation of Samuel Alito concluded:
The editors called for the rejection of a clearly qualified jurist, and approved the use of a filibuster to stop a confirmation vote. They also said it was a matter of principle:
Conservatives, of course, are not allowed to have principles, at least not according to the editors of the Times. The editors now believe that:
But they were perfectly willing to sanction the denial of a vote on the confirmation of Justice Alito.
I call it Democrisy.
[…] Thanks to William Teach of The Pirate’s Cove, I found this editorial in The New York Times: […]
Dana seems to have missed the big picture here
Yes Dems didn’t “like” him BUT they did confirm him after 86 days because he was well qualified
Would there be any hope at all that after that length of time the GOP might do likewise?
Justice Alito was confirmed because the Republicans were in the majority, and they knew that if they continued the filibuster, the majority would have invoked the so-called ‘nuclear option,’ as had been previously threatened. Further, there were a few honorable Democrats in the Senate at the time, though not many.
The ‘big picture’ you say I missed was actually the one you missed: both our host’s article and my comment were about the hypocrisy of the left, not the qualifications of Justice Alito.
Whomever President Obama nominates will be ‘well-qualified,’ in that he will have the requisite degrees, licenses and experience, but he will be wholly unqualified in that he will be someone who wants to take away our First and Second Amendment rights, will support infanticide and reverse racism, and will hold that the Constitution means what he wants it to mean rather than what it actually says.
It’s all political. Republicans nominate qualified (usually) jurists who are politically conservative. Dems nominate qualified jurists who are politically liberal.
Obama will nominate a highly qualified person, but one who will probably not vote to end a woman’s right to abortion. It’s a litmus test from each side.
The next President will most likely be a Dem, and the odds are even that the Dems either take the Senate back or break even.
The GOP (The Party of No) won’t be able to stop the appointment of justices, two of which are very likely to be conservatives.
Joke: Whom does Hillary support for the nomination? Bernie Sanders.
Supreme Court justices use the law to support their political beliefs.
It’s a raw political fight. Always has been, always will be.
Justice Thomas always votes with Justice Scalia. One of them has a great legal mind.
Dana claims Justices supporting his political positions are more qualified than those that don’t. I feel the same way.
It’s all political.
Dana “there were few honorable Democrats…..” Please tell us the last time ANY Senate has voted not to confirm a POTUS SCOTUS nominee
Sandra Day Oconor one of Reagan’s SCOTUS choices has said to at least LOOK AT his nominee. No Sanate majority Leader has ever said he would refuse to consider.a nominee.
Reagan had his nominee in his last year, why not Obama?