As you remember, close after the death of Justice Scalia, Senate Majority Leader and many others proclaimed that no Obama nominee would be considered. Many Republican supporters were concerned that the elected Republicans in the Senate would backslide. Is this about to happen?
(The Hill) Freshman GOP Sen. Thom Tillis warned Tuesday that his party risks being seen as “obstructionist†in a fight over Supreme Court nominations with President Obama.
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.
Republicans are under enormous pressure to block any nominee from Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) quickly put out a statement after Scalia’s death stating that the vacancy should not be filled until a new president takes office.
Yet the GOP also faces enormous risks with its strategy if it turns off independent voters already irritated by Washington’s dysfunction.
Of course, they face enormous risk if they do not block any Obama nominee, and simply rubber stamp the pick. Tillis had this to say right after Scalia’s passing
“We are in midst of a great debate about the future of our country, including the future make-up of the highest court in the land, which makes decisions that affect the lives of all Americans,†Tillis said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the uninhibited expansion of President Obama’s administrative state and his penchant for executive orders that contort the rule of law suggest an utter contempt for our nation’s system of checks and balances.
“It is highly likely that the President will nominate someone who shares his views and will rubber-stamp his unilateral actions, which run counter to the original intent of our Constitution. This is why it is incumbent upon the Senate to assert its co-equal authority in the constitutionally prescribed process of determining the make-up of the highest court. I firmly believe the voice of the American people should be heavily weighted in that decision and their voice will soon be heard on Election Day. Given the current circumstances, the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy would be best left to the next President.â€
Then you have this (from the Hill article)
On Tuesday, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) appeared to back away from that position, arguing it was at least possible a hearing could be held on an Obama nominee.
“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions. … In other words, take it a step at a time,†he told reporters, according to Radio Iowa.
IMO, Republicans shouldn’t have stated that there would be nothing done in the Senate when Obama nominates yet another hardcore Leftist who rules by whim and politics instead of law and the Constitution. Let Obama have his hearings. They can take it very slow during the Judiciary committee and full Senate hearings, and ask questions that expose the person, showing they’re not the right person for the job. Then take a vote and all vote “nay”. That is where concern should be. Will the GOP hold strong in the face of elected Democrats, the White House, and the leftist media putting pressure on the Republican Senators to confirm?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
So far I am giving the Repubs the benefit of the doubt. Likely they will start sending out the usual request for money to “fight” Obama or any other evil when their real intent is to get invited to the next cocktail party in DC. But it is senseless to say that Obama can’t be allowed to send up a nominee. Of course, it might take a year to get all his paper work together, just like the Clinton emails.
Only in conservaland…
The redoubtable Sam Bee puts it most succinctly:
Right wing authoritarians have faulty circuitry connecting their various brain parts – it’s diagnostic of their thought processes, such as they are. Justice Scalia used “original intent” to shroud his right wing decisions, and nothing is more clear than the Constitutional obligation regarding the sitting President nominating a new Justice, but conservatives think THIS President should not.
Backslide by following the Constitution?
Shouldn’t they follow the Constitution? Advise and consent? It’s the Constitutional duty of the Senate, right? They are Constitutionally obligated to evaluate whether the nominee is qualified.
Are they so afraid of our Constitution that they refuse to abide by it?
What Would Scalia Say?
As they all do. It is and has always been about politics. Justices use the “law” to justify their political decisions.
Justices use the “law” to justify their political decisions.
The Court’s majority starts with a desired political outcome – e.g., that corporations should be able to give unlimited amounts of cash and support to Republican candidates. Or George W. Bush should be President. The Federalist Society justices start massaging the paperwork until, Eureka!
Corporations are super-people my friends, 5-4! With more individual rights than citizens!
Bush is elected 5-4! And the dead of Iraq cry out from their graves!
A class of twenty 3rd graders would deliver more reasonable and practical decisions.
Justices use the “law” to justify their political decisions.
And the hypocrisy comes out from the left.
Chuck Schumer said that in the last two years of the Bush presidency, he would never allow a Supreme Court nominee to be approved.
And then there is this:
It was fine when the left wanted to block a Supreme Court appointee but now that is coming back to bite them in the butt, they are squealing like stuck pigs.
Yeah, because Jeffery hates the decisions, he thinks they are all bad. While he supports unions giving unlimited money in elections, he is against corporations giving any money. (It should be noted that the case started because the left was against the group “Citizens United” from exercising their right of free speech.
The Bush / Gore election? That was decided on whether the State of Florida should follow the law when it comes to elections. Eight liberal Florida Supreme Court judges said the law didn’t matter. The Supreme Court voted 5 – 2 to say the law did matter. (Two justices wrote they were not for taking on the case and therefore offered no opinion on the merits)
As usual, the left wants one set of rules for them and another set of rules for others.
I’m not going to be holding my breath on that one.
I didn’t claim that only right-wing justices use the law to justify their political beliefs. They all do. But puh-leze do not claim that far right justices like Alito, Thomas and Scalia are (or were) pure in their motives. They are not. But Scalia’s and similar “original intent” arguments are just cover-ups for their politics. We should face up to that truth. If the truth of each case were obvious we wouldn’t need the court.
The President is Constitutionally obligated to submit a nominee, and the Senate is Constitutionally obligated to evaluate him or her by whatever criteria they deem appropriate. It’s not hard.
Did I miss where the Supreme Court is part of the political process?
Actually we would because there would still be legislators, presidents, and lower governments who would look to throw the Constitution down the tubes.
The EPA case where the Supreme Court issued a stay is one such example. In a case called “Michigan v. EPA” the EPA lost in court and said “screw it, we are implementing these rules while we appeal even though the decision called for the EPA not to implement anything.
The current case was stayed most likely because the Supreme Court knew that the EPA has decided that it doesn’t have to go by laws, statutes and rulings.
Yeah, and yet Obama couldn’t do it in 2007, could he?