Obstructionism

So Scalia died. In an election year. Nominating new Supreme Court Justices is perhaps the most important role a President has and is vital to maintain a balance of power between the three branches of our government. This is middle school social studies stuff.

The current President has nearly a year left in office. No nomination has taken longer than 2 months in the last 40 years. So surely the President will be able to replace Scalia, right?

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Mitch, the American people did have a say. They elected a President to the role. He has a year left in office.

“Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.” -Senator Ted Cruz

Really Ted? You constantly repeat that you are a staunch defender of the Constitution. Have you even read it?

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…”
—United States Constitution, II.2

So before the President even nominates anyone, the Republican leaders in the Senate are already shooting him down. Reprehensible politics.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Obstructionism

  1. Both Biden and The Sen. Obama gave speeches back when new justice needed to be appointed during a Presidential election year. Biden stated strongly that no confirmation hearings should be held until the election cycle was over. Hypocritical, eh?

    • Please point me to Obama’s speech, Lori. I think you’re making things up again.

      As to Biden’s speech, you’re taking a single soundbite from a lengthy speech in which he addresses the problems regarding judicial confirmation. Why not look later in the speech when he says this:

      “I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

      Biden actually repeatedly confirmed Bush’s nominations that year. But I guess that doesn’t fit your narrative though, does it?

  2. When this started going viral, then Obama suddenly regretted what he said back in 2006, because he has now completely flip-flopped, when the shoe ended up on the other foot.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0 *notice, this is from the NY times, not some Conservative “rag”.
    I do not “make stuff up”. I may not always be able to link you to the source, simply because I don’t have the expertise with computers that you do. Hopefully the above will satisfy you. If not, there are several more I can link you to.

    • Lori, I simply don’t understand you. 2006 was a mid-term election, not a presidential election. The Democrats did not control the Senate and were operating from a minority position. There was no filibuster of Alito’s confirmation. In fact, the confirmation hearings lasted only 5 days. The video you linked shows clearly that Obama, as a Senator, wanted to follow the letter of the law and participate in the legislative process of giving advice and consent. Furthermore, that speech was given after the confirmation process. Clearly, Obama and some other Senators wanted a lengthier process than just five days in which to analyze Alito’s ability and qualifications.

      The Alito confirmation and what’s happening this year are not comparable in the slightest. The Republicans are hoping to delay this an entire year so that the next President, who they hope is a Republican, nominates someone entirely different. They are refusing to even consider a nominee, an act of obstructionism that directly conflicts with the Constitution.

      You’re attempting to sling mud, saying the Democrats are just as bad. But you clearly cannot defend your party’s actions on their own merit.

  3. All I’m saying is that when Dems were in a minority position during the SCOTUS confirmation process they were screaming the same things that the Republicans are now. Obama was saying that it was the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent to any nominee, just like the Republicans are saying now. But now that Obama is in the Oval Office and actually in the position of nominating someone he is all about circumventing the Senate and only giving lip service to their responsibility to “advise and consent”. They are only following HIS advice that he gave back in 2006.

    • It’s not even remotely the same thing. Were the Dems refusing to advise and consent? Were they doing so before a nominee had even been named? Were they attempting to avoid doing their constitutional duty for an entire year?

      Look, I get it. You desperately want to defend your political party because you hate Obama and oppose anything he does. But this is pathetic obstructionism. This is why voters from all sides of the political spectrum are upset with politicians. This is why an egotistical, sexist, racist, and xenophobic billionaire will be the Republican nominee for the most powerful position in the world.

      When you excuse or defend atrocious behavior from politicians, you give them power to continue doing it.

  4. It’s all politics. When the Republicans do something the Dems don’t like, the Dems start screaming. When the Dems do something the GOP doesn’t like, the GOP starts screaming. The GOP and myself included DO NOT want another liberal on the Court. There needs to be a balance between Conservatives and Liberals on the Court so that all issues that appear before the Court will be thoroughly considered and discussed and the best decision, based on the CONSTITUTION will prevail. If the Court is weighted heavily liberal, then, in my opinion, the Constitution will be interpreted not in the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be. Case in point: the decision on same sex marriage. No where in the Constitution or even the Bill of Rights does it allow for or even mention gay marriage. It doesn’t even mention marriage at all, meaning that was to be left up to the states to decide. But a liberal court decided they could twist the wording and intention of the Constitution and BOR to mean whatever they, the liberal majority wanted it to mean. That’s why there must be somewhat of a balance. (Which is not entirely possible because of the makeup of 9 judges). There won’t be if Obama is allowed to nominate and shove through the Senate, another liberal candidate.

    • “The GOP and myself included DO NOT want another liberal on the Court.”
      But that’s not up to you. It’s up to the American people. And they voted in a liberal President. That’s what happens when you lose an election.

      “There needs to be a balance between Conservatives and Liberals on the Court so that all issues that appear before the Court will be thoroughly considered and discussed and the best decision, based on the CONSTITUTION will prevail.”
      There has been a conservative majority for decades now despite the Presidency belonging to Democrats for 15 of the last 23 years.

      “If the Court is weighted heavily liberal, then, in my opinion, the Constitution will be interpreted not in the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be. Case in point: the decision on same sex marriage. No where in the Constitution or even the Bill of Rights does it allow for or even mention gay marriage.”
      A conservative majority Supreme Court decided that case. They are the ones tasked with interpreting the Constitution, not you. In the end, this was a matter of equal protection under the law. If Bill can marry Susan, why can’t Beth marry Susan instead? To not allow it would be treating Beth differently and unfairly under the law than Bill. It’s really that simple.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s