Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: ketsuko

Meanwhile, back in 2007, Chuck Schumer said that the Senate should immediately block any more Bush nominees.

'Do as I say, not as I do,' apparently.

Yep. And it is on video here.

one man’s cliff is another man’s fortress of moral certitude

RedState

Senator Schumer promises to do "everything in my power" to prevent another
Roberts or Alito from being confirmed to the Supreme Court

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: vor78
Ginsburg rather than Scalia, . . .

One died, the other didn't.

Yet.

Why don't you guys quote what Schumer actually said:

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not. "

with what McConnell said:

“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"

Politico

Not even close to the same thing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Good point.

But I would wonder what Schumer's guidelines for "extraordinary circumstances" are.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I believe it will be before that. What I believe is that they are buying time, blaming it on Obama rather than their own ignorance, in order to find out where the electorate stands.

They have gotten a sudden wake up call that the electorate is more than just a little angry. But they are unsure where their constituency stands. Right now, two states have made their voices heard and those senators are very clear on what their particular electorate might want. One state a little more right, one slightly more moderate. As these votes come in in each state, then the senate has a truer sense of where the electorate stands, and what kind of decisions they should be making in order to keep their own jobs later.

Seriously, I believe this. Once the primary is done, they will be able to make a good decision. Whether they need to go more moderate, or whether they need to go more conservative to keep their constituency happy.

You cannot expect them to be truthful and say, we might have messed up and think our jobs are in jeopardy so we need some time to get a handle on what our constituency wants. This election has thrown them all into a loop - and they are buying some time.

While it might not be a bad thing to wait and see who the next president is before making the decision, I doubt they will take the chance of loosing the national race to someone like Sanders.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good point.

But I would wonder what Schumer's guidelines for "extraordinary circumstances" are.

First of all, let me make a clear proviso ... I am NOT a Chuck Schumer fan.

Second, he felt like they were "hoodwinked" with Alito's testimony. He was saying, essentially, that the Confirmation process should not only not be a "rubber stamp" ... but that the record of the nominee should have far more weight than what they "say" before the Senate hearing.

Third, I have no issue at all with the Senate giving the President's nominees reasonable and righteous hell. There are several good candidates that the Senate has previously approved UNANIMOUSLY ... and if Mr. Obama were to go full-left-wing nutjob with his nominee, then perhaps they should be rejected.

However, if he recommends a bright jurist that has a proven record of exceptional Constitutional knowledge and respect, if the Senate holds them back or even, as McConnell probably "misspoke" refuses to even consider ... THAT will be a Constitutional Crisis that will make history ... however it gets resolved.

In reality, it is all about perception.

"I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination." www.frontpagemag.com...

Barack Obama

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yet these last years, and I am talking many many more than just both the Bush and Obama administration, has so polarized our nation that we are in a National Crisis that is absolutely historic. On the democratic side, we have the majority wanting socialism instead of what this country was founded on, and the republican side you have an equally opposite force wanting constitutionalism as an answer to that.

So right now, having a historic constitutional crisis is easy to see coming.

a reply to: Kitana

A third of the Senate is also up for election/re-election in November. They will be covering their own hind-ends first.

Most of those are Republican seats. The Presidential Election years ALWAYS bring out more left-leaners and lefties to the polls. There is a decent chance (although, no one can say at this moment) that we will have a Democratic President for four years and a Democrat-controlled Senate for at least the next two years, which would result in the likelihood of a far more liberal jurist being nominated and appointed in early 2017.

However, the fact is that the American people HAVE spoken. Obama was re-elected by a majority of 5 million votes. The Constitution is clear, the President can nominate, and the Senate MUST advise and consent (or reject). They don't get to stick their fingers in their ears and wait for November.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No one is saying he cannot nominate. But nomination is not unilateral appointment. You know that. It is his right and responsibility to nominate. No one is saying otherwise.

a reply to: Kitana

We've always been polarized ... the poles have merely shifted over time.

Socialism is not the opposite of constitutionalism.

Read "Agrarian Justice" by Tom Paine.

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Gryphon66

No one is saying he cannot nominate. But nomination is not unilateral appointment. You know that. It is his right and responsibility to nominate. No one is saying otherwise.

Your statements are not even close to being accurate.

Mitch McConnell basically did say that the Senate was not going to give the President the chance to fulfill his Constitutional duty, Ted Cruz DID SAY that we should wait until the next President is elected and Trump said that we must "deny, deny deny."

These are the people you seem to think are the guardians of the Constitution; nothing could be farther from the facts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll read that. Thank you for the recommendation.

As to the rest, I don't think we have ever been quite this polarized before. Until these last 60 years or so, it was not quite this bad. Its been getting worse and worse, and more and more we are rewriting the definitions to be whatever we want.

A short essay that highlights how far we have come from the original understanding.

Limited Government, Unlimited Administration: Is it Possible to Restore Constitutionalism?

Peace.

Honestly, it serves Obama better to have the GOP dig in their heels. Any 4-4 rulings on the current slate of hearings are more likely to go in favor of federal judicial activists. Meanwhile, Obama can point to GOP obstructionism for his nominee.

In the end, Obama will care more about what pushes his agenda instead of what benefits the USA, because Obama is an uber ideologue who believes what he thinks is best.

And that makes Obama even more of a dangerous moron.

a reply to: Kitana

Read about what happened in Adams' term ... the "Alien and Sedition Acts" ...

We were right out of the gate far far more polarized than we are (yet) in 2016.

I don't agree with the current GOP saber-rattling about auto-refusing any nominees. The Senate should have hearings. And if they don't like the nominee, don't approve him/her. Point out all their dangerous rulings, and give them the Bork treatment if necessary. It's pretty easy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A down vote to a nomination is not saying he cannot nominate. How many times have the democrats said no to a nomination?

Is it unprecedented perhaps to say it in advance? Not really because its been said prior to this from democrats, but the republicans have a reason to say it right now, until they know better the stances of the electorate.

And, I'll be honest with you. If this election goes sharply left, I have no problem with the Supreme Court going that way too. I don't want to see it, but again, if its what the majority ends up wanting? Why not give it to them?

They will have to live what they are asking for to see the inherent problems in it, apparently. Yet, on the other hand, if it begins leaning more to the right, then let the Supreme Court reflect that too.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Kitana

Read about what happened in Adams' term ... the "Alien and Sedition Acts" ...

We were right out of the gate far far more polarized than we are (yet) in 2016.

Not really. One "Pole" was not grass roots, The Federalists were a bunch of would be oligarchs who were never again voted into office. The same folks who slimed in the COTUS.

In other words, the folks who finagled in the COTUS over the Articles of Confederation were never elected into office after one their own showed his true stripes.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Gryphon66

A down vote to a nomination is not saying he cannot nominate. How many times have the democrats said no to a nomination?

Is it unprecedented perhaps to say it in advance? Not really because its been said prior to this from democrats, but the republicans have a reason to say it right now, until they know better the stances of the electorate.

And, I'll be honest with you. If this election goes sharply left, I have no problem with the Supreme Court going that way too. I don't want to see it, but again, if its what the majority ends up wanting? Why not give it to them?

They will have to live what they are asking for to see the inherent problems in it, apparently. Yet, on the other hand, if it begins leaning more to the right, then let the Supreme Court reflect that too.

The Senate Majority Leader and several leading Republican Presidential Candidates have suggested that the Senate prevent Mr. Obama from his Constitutional duty. I'm not sure how that can be ignored.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I said we were polarized from the start. Each side always tries to claim the "grass roots" for their side, or that they are the only ones truly acting on behalf of The People. Do you think that any "polarization" requires a populist "side"?

1) The "COTUS" was hardly "slimed in" by Federalists, you may have heard of James Madison.
2) The Federalists are not the point of what I claimed. I gave an example to another member of just how contentious and divided things have always been right from the start.
3) This really isn't the place to explore your disdain for our Constitution.