Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 15, 2016, 01:02:27 PM
-
Will be interesting to hear his spin on this.
Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/GettyImages-509583058-1-640x480.jpg)
GettyImages-509583058 (1)Getty
by KEN KLUKOWSKI
14 Feb 2016
WASHINGTON—In a development that’s likely to cause fits for President Barack Obama, the Senate Democrats’ next leader, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)2%
, told an 2007 audience — on video — that he wanted to block any Supreme Court nominations for the last 18 months of President George W. Bush’s presidency.
That’s seven months longer than the amount of time remaining to Obama’s presidency.
The political situation in 2007 was a mirror image of the current face-off created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death. Bush was in his second term in the White House, and the Democrats had retaken the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. The incumbent president had already made two Supreme Court appointments, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Schumer’s audience was the American Constitution Society (ACS), a left-wing legal organization. The society was founded in an effort to limit the impact that the Federalist Society was having on promoting conservative legal principles in American law schools, which are notoriously liberal.
On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:
How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.
Schumer is slated to replace Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)2%
as the Democrats’ leader in the Senate after this year, when Reid retires.
No word yet from Schumer as to why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months.
Scalia was the faculty advisor at the University of Chicago of one of the founding chapters of the Federalist Society, a student chapter started by David McIntosh, who later became a lawyer in the Reagan administration and then a congressman from Indiana. McIntosh is now president of the Club for Growth, and vice chairman of the Federalist Society.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-can-block-scotus-nominees-for-18-months/
-
Yeah glad you dug this up.....
Its not about blocking any judge...just a nutbag leftist.
-
Will be interesting to hear his spin on this.
Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/GettyImages-509583058-1-640x480.jpg)
GettyImages-509583058 (1)Getty
by KEN KLUKOWSKI
14 Feb 2016
WASHINGTON—In a development that’s likely to cause fits for President Barack Obama, the Senate Democrats’ next leader, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)2%
, told an 2007 audience — on video — that he wanted to block any Supreme Court nominations for the last 18 months of President George W. Bush’s presidency.
That’s seven months longer than the amount of time remaining to Obama’s presidency.
The political situation in 2007 was a mirror image of the current face-off created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death. Bush was in his second term in the White House, and the Democrats had retaken the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. The incumbent president had already made two Supreme Court appointments, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Schumer’s audience was the American Constitution Society (ACS), a left-wing legal organization. The society was founded in an effort to limit the impact that the Federalist Society was having on promoting conservative legal principles in American law schools, which are notoriously liberal.
On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:
How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.
Schumer is slated to replace Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)2%
as the Democrats’ leader in the Senate after this year, when Reid retires.
No word yet from Schumer as to why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months.
Scalia was the faculty advisor at the University of Chicago of one of the founding chapters of the Federalist Society, a student chapter started by David McIntosh, who later became a lawyer in the Reagan administration and then a congressman from Indiana. McIntosh is now president of the Club for Growth, and vice chairman of the Federalist Society.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-can-block-scotus-nominees-for-18-months/
Yep... It will be interesting to hear what Schumer says now and how he tries to spin it. Unfortunately, none of these clowns will learn their lesson: that if you politicize the process when you have the upper hand you'll pay the price eventually.
-
Rubio's bud, Schumer.
-
Will be interesting to hear his spin on this.
Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/GettyImages-509583058-1-640x480.jpg)
GettyImages-509583058 (1)Getty
by KEN KLUKOWSKI
14 Feb 2016
WASHINGTON—In a development that’s likely to cause fits for President Barack Obama, the Senate Democrats’ next leader, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)2%
, told an 2007 audience — on video — that he wanted to block any Supreme Court nominations for the last 18 months of President George W. Bush’s presidency.
That’s seven months longer than the amount of time remaining to Obama’s presidency.
The political situation in 2007 was a mirror image of the current face-off created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death. Bush was in his second term in the White House, and the Democrats had retaken the Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. The incumbent president had already made two Supreme Court appointments, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Schumer’s audience was the American Constitution Society (ACS), a left-wing legal organization. The society was founded in an effort to limit the impact that the Federalist Society was having on promoting conservative legal principles in American law schools, which are notoriously liberal.
On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:
How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.
Schumer is slated to replace Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)2%
as the Democrats’ leader in the Senate after this year, when Reid retires.
No word yet from Schumer as to why it is acceptable for Democrats to not act on a Republican nomination to the Supreme Court for 18 months, but it is unacceptable for Republicans to not act on a Democratic nomination for 11 months.
Scalia was the faculty advisor at the University of Chicago of one of the founding chapters of the Federalist Society, a student chapter started by David McIntosh, who later became a lawyer in the Reagan administration and then a congressman from Indiana. McIntosh is now president of the Club for Growth, and vice chairman of the Federalist Society.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-can-block-scotus-nominees-for-18-months/
Schumer's statement is not acceptable and as blatantly partisan as McConnell
-
Funny. But pretty accurate.
The Supreme Court Vacancy Explained (in 250 Words)
By Charles Lipson
February 15, 2016
No. 1: No nominee for the high court can get through the Senate before the election. No one.
No. 2: President Obama and the Democratic candidates for president know that. So do Republicans. All God’s children know it.
No. 3: Since the nominee will not be approved, Obama will use the opportunity to advance other goals. He will propose someone who burnishes his own progressive credentials and shows why control of the court depends on the November election. Putting Senate Republicans in an awkward position would be a nice bonus. But the target is November.
No. 4: Obama will nominate someone whose demographic characteristics help in the contests for president and U.S. Senate. That is not just his main criterion. It is his only one. The candidate could be from a purple state. Or a Latino. Or openly gay. Having finished law school would be a plus.
No. 5: The proposed candidate will not receive a Senate vote before the election or in the lame-duck session. If Mitch McConnell even considered it, he would become the former majority leader.
No. 6: Democrats and Republicans will both use the issue to show voters why it is crucial to elect them -- and not the other party. Democrats will add that this again shows we have a "do nothing" Congress. Republicans will say it shows we have “do too much” judges.
No. 7: All the rest is political theater, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science and the founder and director of the Program on International Politicis, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago. He can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/15/the_supreme_court_vacancy_explained_in_250_words_129666.html
-
Funny. But pretty accurate.
The Supreme Court Vacancy Explained (in 250 Words)
By Charles Lipson
February 15, 2016
No. 1: No nominee for the high court can get through the Senate before the election. No one.
No. 2: President Obama and the Democratic candidates for president know that. So do Republicans. All God’s children know it.
No. 3: Since the nominee will not be approved, Obama will use the opportunity to advance other goals. He will propose someone who burnishes his own progressive credentials and shows why control of the court depends on the November election. Putting Senate Republicans in an awkward position would be a nice bonus. But the target is November.
No. 4: Obama will nominate someone whose demographic characteristics help in the contests for president and U.S. Senate. That is not just his main criterion. It is his only one. The candidate could be from a purple state. Or a Latino. Or openly gay. Having finished law school would be a plus.
No. 5: The proposed candidate will not receive a Senate vote before the election or in the lame-duck session. If Mitch McConnell even considered it, he would become the former majority leader.
No. 6: Democrats and Republicans will both use the issue to show voters why it is crucial to elect them -- and not the other party. Democrats will add that this again shows we have a "do nothing" Congress. Republicans will say it shows we have “do too much” judges.
No. 7: All the rest is political theater, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science and the founder and director of the Program on International Politicis, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago. He can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/15/the_supreme_court_vacancy_explained_in_250_words_129666.html
All Gods Children?
BTW - Reagan had a SC nominee passed in February ....before an election
Also, Schumers comments (though idiotic) was not in an official capacity as Speaker and not made at the time there was an actual vacancy on the court. He was just talking shit at a speaking engagement to a left wing audience
-
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in 1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson
February 14, 2016
Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:
Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.
As it should this time.
Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40HakwkpD
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/poetic-juctice-obama-was-1st-us-president-to-vote-for-filibuster-in-supreme-court-nomination/
Obama was all for filbustering bush's appointment...I guess it's different now though
-
fine, then Obama can nominate someone and the Repubs can filibuster (or attempt to filibuster) just like the Dems did
-
fine, then Obama can nominate someone and the Repubs can filibuster (or attempt to filibuster) just like the Dems did
LMFAO man that talking point sure changed fast
-
Schumer is a bag of shit, just like anyone else who will block the process.
Rubio is working on being bag-of-shit like schumer. he'll get there. he just has to work at it.
-
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=aad9dddf-267b-4377-9d81-f66365cbeeb7&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia Loretta Lynch (Photo by Molly Riley/AP)
By Cathy Burke | Monday, 15 Feb 2016
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is President Barack Obama's likely candidate to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court – and could pose a challenge for a GOP-controlled Senate seemingly intent on blocking any pick, one analyst predicts.
SCOTUSblog author Tom Goldstein writes he had earlier thought Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford would be at the top of Obama's shortlist of high court candidates.
"On reflection, I think that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is more likely," he writes. "I also think that the Republicans will eventually permit the nomination to proceed on the merits and reject it on party lines."
Goldstein argues GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas will be a key figure when the debate hits the Upper Chamber because he "will drive enormous pressure against proceeding with any nomination."
Still, Goldstein points out, rejecting Lynch as the choice to fill the seat left by the death Saturday of the revered conservative Scalia poses a problem for Republicans on two fronts.
"Her history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal," he writes, adding: "I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters."
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/scotus-analyst-tom-goldstein-loretta-lynch/2016/02/15/id/714428/#ixzz40Hvo3pc8
-
I hope he doesn't nominate Loretta Lynch. There are much better candidates. And really, it'd be great if he'd nominate someone with a bit more diverse experience - a former Governor, Senator or even President (Taft becaome the 10th Chief Justice after his term as President was over). And before anyone freaks out, no, I don't think that Obama should nominate Bill or Hillary Clinton - in fact, I think that'd be a disaster.
-
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=aad9dddf-267b-4377-9d81-f66365cbeeb7&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
I bet obama will choose a minority woman.
That may hurt repubs in the election IF they block a qualified SCOTUS choice for ten months.
-
fine, then Obama can nominate someone and the Repubs can filibuster (or attempt to filibuster) just like the Dems did
Oh my, how your tune changes when you found out your own party has done what you found so appalling. Did you ever find Harry Reid's comments following Scalia's death yet? If so, did you find them just as offensive as McConnell's?
-
Schumer is a bag of shit, just like anyone else who will block the process.
Rubio is working on being bag-of-shit like schumer. he'll get there. he just has to work at it.
So, would it still be unprecedented action now that we know democrats wanted to do it on at least 2 prior occassions?
-
You weren't exactly throwing darts @ the bull's eye from 100 yards, in predicting obama to nominate a minority...
-
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=aad9dddf-267b-4377-9d81-f66365cbeeb7&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia Loretta Lynch (Photo by Molly Riley/AP)
By Cathy Burke | Monday, 15 Feb 2016
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is President Barack Obama's likely candidate to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court – and could pose a challenge for a GOP-controlled Senate seemingly intent on blocking any pick, one analyst predicts.
SCOTUSblog author Tom Goldstein writes he had earlier thought Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford would be at the top of Obama's shortlist of high court candidates.
"On reflection, I think that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is more likely," he writes. "I also think that the Republicans will eventually permit the nomination to proceed on the merits and reject it on party lines."
Goldstein argues GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas will be a key figure when the debate hits the Upper Chamber because he "will drive enormous pressure against proceeding with any nomination."
Still, Goldstein points out, rejecting Lynch as the choice to fill the seat left by the death Saturday of the revered conservative Scalia poses a problem for Republicans on two fronts.
"Her history as a career prosecutor makes it very difficult to paint her as excessively liberal," he writes, adding: "I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters."
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/scotus-analyst-tom-goldstein-loretta-lynch/2016/02/15/id/714428/#ixzz40Hvo3pc8
The repubs cave if they don't have any principles....she's a lib and will undo what's been done. Only dems see race in this.
-
The repubs cave if they don't have any principles....she's a lib and will undo what's been done. Only dems see race in this.
Given their history, I fully expect Obama to make the GOP his b@#$%. I will be surprised if they have the cojones to hold out till the end of the year.
-
Given their history, I fully expect Obama to make the GOP his b@#$%. I will be surprised if they have the cojones to hold out till the end of the year.
They're all on the same team.
-
LMFAO man that talking point sure changed fast
nothing changed at all
it's the POTUS's duty to select someone and then Congress's duty to have a vote (or a filibuster if that's what they want to try to do)
try keeping up
-
nothing changed at all
it's the POTUS's duty to select someone and then Congress's duty to have a vote (or a filibuster if that's what they want to try to do)
try keeping up
He kept up just fine. You started a thread voicing your disgust for mcconnell doing the same thing.....because you were unaware that democrats engaged in the same behavior. Now that you find out, you act as if it's no big deal and try to save face.
-
Key Senator Undecided on Hearing for Obama High Court Pick
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=5e53c4b5-404a-4551-93e3-ccd67c9b3cc5&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Key Senator Undecided on Hearing for Obama High Court Pick
Tuesday, 16 Feb 2016
The Republican head of the Senate panel that weighs U.S. Supreme Court nominations said on Tuesday he will wait until President Barack Obama names his pick to fill the vacancy left by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's death before deciding whether to hold confirmation hearings.
"I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions" about confirmation hearings, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said, according to Radio Iowa. "In other words, take it a step at a time."
Grassley has offered mixed messages since Scalia's death on how the Senate should proceed on the vacancy, alternating hardline views on blocking any nominee with comments not ruling out hearings.
Republicans have threatened not to act on any nominee put forward by the Democratic president for the Supreme Court seat. Obama's nominee could alter the court's balance of power. Before Scalia's death, it had five conservatives and four liberals.
Republicans control the Senate, which the U.S. Constitution assigns responsibility for confirming a president's nomination to the court. Republicans have opposed nearly all of Obama's major initiatives during the first seven years of his presidency, and filling the court vacancy is shaping up as a monumental election-year fight.
Grassley initially told the Des Moines Register newspaper shortly after word of Scalia's death on Saturday he would not "make any prognostication" about how the committee or the full Senate would handle a nomination to fill the vacancy. Later on Saturday, he put out a statement saying the Senate should not take up the nomination until after the election.
Senator Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat, prodded Republicans to act on whomever Obama nominates for a lifetime appointment to the court.
"The advice and consent role enshrined in our Constitution was not designed to allow a blanket prohibition of any potential nominee, but that is exactly where the Republican majority leader is trying to take us," Leahy wrote in an opinion piece in USA Today, referring to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
McConnell said on Saturday the vacancy should not be filled until Obama's successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.
Obama was expected to face questions on the Supreme Court later on Tuesday during a news conference in Rancho Mirage, California at the close of a two-day meeting with leaders from Southeast Asia.
While the House plays no role in confirming Supreme Court nominees, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan supported the idea of blocking any nominee offered by Obama.
"The president has absolutely every right to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, but Congress as an equal branch also has every right not to confirm someone," Ryan said in interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper.
'NAKEDLY PARTISAN'
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that if Senate Republicans block consideration of any Obama nominee, "they will ensure that this Republican majority is remembered as the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history."
Ed Pagano, who served in Obama's White House as liaison to the Senate from 2012 to 2014, said to put pressure on Senate Republicans Democrats could refuse to give their consent on must-pass spending bills until the nominee is considered.
"If the minority (Democrats) really wants to gum stuff up, they can," Pagano told Reuters.
Pagano said the ideal candidate for the nomination would be either a woman or a minority, recently vetted by Congress and viewed as a moderate.
For those reasons, Pagano said Sri Srinivasan, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since he was confirmed on a 97-0 bipartisan vote in the U.S. Senate in 2013, would be the most logical fit. He would be the first Indian-American on the high court.
"Somebody like that could put a little political pressure on Republicans. Whether that will be enough for McConnell to relent, I don't know," Pagano said.
Scalia, 79, was found dead on Saturday at a Texas hunting resort.
A court spokeswoman said Scalia's body will lie in repose at the Supreme Court building on Friday. Funeral arrangements have not been announced, but National Public Radio reported that his funeral will be on Saturday at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.
Scalia's chair in the court's ornate chamber has been draped with black wool crepe in accordance with court tradition following a justice's death.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/grassley-scalia-supreme-court/2016/02/16/id/714658/#ixzz40N9MAmpF
-
'The Kelly File' Fact-Checks Pat Leahy's Supreme Court Flip-Flop
Feb 16, 2016 // 10:34pm
As seen on The Kelly File
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2016/02/16/780/438/694940094001_4759247571001_636504ba-bdb1-466c-8d5d-850b729d667d.jpg)
Tantaros: 'Highly Hypocritical' of Obama to Lecture GOP About SCOTUS
Obama: SCOTUS Vacancy Offers Chance to Rise Above 'Venom and Rancor' of D.C.
As the battle over replacing late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia heats up, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are being accused of flip-flopping.
Tonight, "The Kelly File" fact-checked Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), who apparently has changed his position on when it's appropriate for a president to nominate a new justice.
"The 'Thurmond Rule' - in memory of Strom Thurmond - he put this in when the Republicans were in the minority, which said that in a presidential election year, after spring, no judges would go through except by the consent of both the Republican and Democratic leaders," Leahy said in December 2006. "I want to be bipartisan. We will institute the 'Thurmond Rule,' yes."
Earlier this week, however, Leahy contradicted that statement on CNN's "State of the Union," saying, "Well, there is no such thing as a 'Thurmond Rule.' ... The fact of the matter is, a Supreme Court Justice - let's have a vote. Let's have a debate."
Megyn Kelly said that is "ridiculous," as it appears that Leahy will change his position based on whether the president in office is a Democrat or a Republican.
Get more reaction to the Supreme Court battle from Megyn and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in the clip above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/16/kelly-file-fact-checks-pat-leahy-supreme-court-flip-flop
-
Schumer Claims He Didn’t Call For Blocking Bush Noms, Even Though He Clearly Did
BLAKE NEFF
Reporter
02/16/2016
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/schumer-e1455656755330.jpg)
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer [Yuri Gripas/Reuters] New York Sen. Chuck Schumer [Yuri Gripas/Reuters]
New York Sen. Charles Schumer fired back at Republicans citing a 2007 speech he gave to block all George W. Bush Supreme Court nominees to justify efforts to block President Barack Obama from replacing late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
As The Daily Caller News Foundation first reported Sunday, Schumer’s recent denunciations of Republican obstructionism on the Supreme Court clash with a 2007 speech he gave calling for Democrats to block any future George W. Bush nominations. But now, Schumer says it’s dishonest to use the speech to justify current Republican plans regarding the Supreme Court.
“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,” Schumer wrote Tuesday for the website Medium. “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,” he continued. “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.
But Schumer’s explanation doesn’t appear to line up with his remarks at the time. While it is certainly true that he never calls for avoiding hearings, as some Republicans have suggested, it is absolutely the case that he proposed categorically rejecting any new nominees Bush put forward.
In his speech to the American Constitution Society, Schumer was reflecting on his experience with the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, whose elevation heralded a conservative shift by the Supreme Court. After claiming Democrats were “hoodwinked” by Alito and Roberts at their confirmation hearings, Schumer lays out his proposals for how Democrats should act going forward.
“For the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.”
Despite his piece on Medium, it is clear Schumer was not calling for Democrats to “entertain” voting against a Bush nominee. He was saying Democrats should absolutely vote down any nominee unless unclear “exceptional circumstances” dictated otherwise.
The full text of Schumer’s speech further belies his claim that Democrats would only have had to decide against a nominee after a full hearing. Much of Schumer’s speech consists of him arguing that confirmation hearings are inherently unreliable and not a good way to vet a candidate for the Supreme Court.
“Hearings produce a lot of sound and fury, often signifying nothing,” he said in 2007. “It is too easy to evade a question; it is too easy to refuse to answer; it is too easy to be coached; and it is too easy to offer an easy platitude rather than a concrete opinion.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/schumer-claims-he-didnt-call-for-blocking-bush-noms-even-though-he-clearly-did/#ixzz40SHRG0pU
-
Rubio's bud, Schumer, you mean?
No way he'd lie. Not him.
-
just another libtard hypocrite being a libtard hypocrite.
-
Oh look: the race card. How original.
Clinton suggests racial 'bigotry' behind Republicans' stance in Supreme Court fight
Published February 17, 2016
FoxNews.com
Hillary Clinton ratcheted up Democrats’ criticism of Senate Republicans in the debate over filling the Supreme Court’s sudden vacancy, suggesting Tuesday that those calling on President Obama not to nominate someone are motivated by race.
Republicans fired back on Wednesday, calling Clinton's comments a "new low" in the debate.
The Democratic presidential candidate had accused Republicans of talking in “coded racial language” during remarks in Harlem, tying that to the ongoing battle over who should replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia – and who should nominate that replacement.
Many Republicans want Obama to defer to the next president to name a successor; Obama has rejected those calls and plans to nominate a replacement, he says, “in due time.”
Clinton, speaking about race issues in Harlem on Tuesday, lit into Republicans over their position.
“Now the Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates, no matter how qualified. Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone. As if somehow he’s not the real president,” she said.
“You know, that’s in keeping with what we’ve heard all along, isn’t it? Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.”
The conservative Newsbusters accused Clinton of playing the “race card.”
The Republican National Committee challenged Clinton’s comments on Wednesday, saying the debate is about the American people “having a say” and not about the president or the nominee.
“Hillary Clinton and President Obama set the standard for obstructing Supreme Court justices, by voting against Roberts and filibustering Alito. Invoking race to sweep her own hypocrisy on this matter under the rug is a new low,” RNC Director of Black Media Orlando Watson said in a statement.
Clinton’s comments come as she and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders battle for support from minority voters, ahead of the South Carolina Democratic primary.
In that same speech, Clinton took some implicit shots at Sanders, suggesting he only recently started paying attention to race issues. She said candidates “can't just start building relationships a few weeks before the vote."
Sanders, though, has been meeting with black leaders and discussing race issues frequently on the campaign trail and on the debate stage.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/17/clinton-suggests-racial-bigotry-behind-republicans-stance-in-supreme-court-fight.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee
By Jordan Fabian - 02/17/16
President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.
“That is an approach the president regrets,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
Obama and the Democratic senators who joined him in filibustering Alito “should have been in the position where they were making a public case” against the merits of his nomination to the high court instead, Earnest said.
“They shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process," he added.
As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush’s picks to serve on the bench. The filibuster bid failed and Alito was confirmed.
Conservatives have seized on Obama’s filibuster vote to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing Republicans for saying the next president, and not Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.
But Earnest said the GOP is going further than Obama did in pledging to not consider any nominee the president puts forward.
“These are two different things,” the spokesman said.
He argued that the Democrats’ 2006 filibuster of Alito was symbolic because he had the votes to be confirmed.
And he said Obama’s decision to filibuster was “based on substance” whereas the GOP’s blanket opposition to any Obama nominee is purely political. The president has yet to choose a nominee to replace Scalia.
Earnest went further than Obama did during a press conference when he was asked about his choice to join the filibuster effort against Alito.
“I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party,” Obama said Tuesday. “This has become just one more extension of politics.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee
-
Well, this thread certainly ruined the "mcconnell is the devil" thread.
-
Well, this thread certainly ruined the "mcconnell is the devil" thread.
not really
there is no precedent of Majority Leader in the Senate to come out and say that the Supreme Court seat should remain vacant for 11 months and even more insulting (to anyone with a brain) to state his reasoning is that "the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice"
Basically he, as an individual person, has decided to ignore the voice of 60 million + voters who gave Obama a second term.
McConnell gets my vote at the first politician who I believe is truly Anti-American
-
Well, this thread certainly ruined the "mcconnell is the devil" thread.
lol. Yep.
-
Will probably be busy reading his daily intelligence reports.
Obama to skip Scalia funeral, will pay respects Friday at court
By Jordan Fabian
02/17/16
President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will travel to the Supreme Court Friday to pay their respects to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, but they will not attend his funeral Saturday.
Scalia’s body will lie in repose in the Great Hall of the court Friday, and the building will be open to the public to allow visitors to honor the justice, who died last Saturday at 79.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the Obamas will not attend Scalia’s Saturday funeral at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. Vice President Biden and his wife, Jill, will be present instead.
Earnest would not say whether anything was on the president's schedule that prevented him from going to the funeral.
Scalia’s death set off an immediate partisan battle over whether Obama should appoint a successor during his final year in office, overshadowing public mourning of the conservative jurist.
"It’s important, before we rush into the all the politics of this, to take stock of somebody who made enormous contributions to the United States," Obama said at a press conference Tuesday in California. "And we are grateful not only for his service but for his family’s service."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269712-obamas-to-pay-respects-to-scalia-friday-at-court
-
Obama to Skip Scalia Funeral
Posted on February 17, 2016
by Keith Koffler
What a disgrace. The funeral is Saturday. We wrote over in LifeZette that no president has skipped the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice in 60 years.
So, it’s going to be 63 degrees and sunny on Saturday in Washington. Now what do you think Obama will be doing? Gosh, I hope not.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had no explanation. Vice President Biden will attend instead, missing his weekend of golf in Delaware.
Sucks to be the VP.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2016/02/17/obama-skip-scalia-funeral/
-
Who attended Justice White's funeral in 2002?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White
Oh, neither Bush nor Cheney? I looked for the thread where Dos Equis bitched about Bush/Cheney both skipping this funeral in 2002 but didn't see it.
Can you link us to it? Thank bro.
-
Who attended Justice White's funeral in 2002?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White
Oh, neither Bush nor Cheney? I looked for the thread where Dos Equis bitched about Bush/Cheney both skipping this funeral in 2002 but didn't see it.
Can you link us to it? Thank bro.
What I'd like is a link to one day in the past ten years when you were not hanging from some liberal's short and curlies, repeatedly trying to deflect attention away from anything negative that impacts President Obama or any other liberal.
Can you link us? Thank you.
-
What I'd like is a link to one day in the past ten years when you were not hanging from some liberal's short and curlies, repeatedly trying to deflect attention away from anything negative that impacts President Obama or any other liberal.
Can you link us? Thank you.
Oh. I completely bukkake your post, so you attack me. Attack the messenger not the message.
I'd tell an active moderator, but from what I hear, they're all RINOs that love amnesty, so I don't really think i'll do that route ;)
-
Oh. I completely bukkake your post, so you attack me. Attack the messenger not the message.
I'd tell an active moderator, but from what I hear, they're all RINOs that love amnesty, so I don't really think i'll do that route ;)
You are clearly not the sharpest pencil in the box.
-
LOL - Bum getting his ass handed to him again
-
Who attended Justice White's funeral in 2002?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White
Oh, neither Bush nor Cheney? I looked for the thread where Dos Equis bitched about Bush/Cheney both skipping this funeral in 2002 but didn't see it.
Can you link us to it? Thank bro.
He retired in 1993. It's a completely different situatuon, not to mention that Bush wasn't even in office when he served.....
Its right there in your link. So, why don't we go ahead and talk about how many active supreme court justice funerals were missed
I don't give a shit if he attends the funeral or not. But you have to admit that it looks pretty bad that on the same day he informs the press he isn't going to attend the funeral, we find out he plans to meet with black lives matter organizers tomorrow. If that isn't bad enough, his press secretary wouldn't even deny that he may be playing golf saturday
But we are talking about the president that let a person, that bathed in a bath tub full of cereal and makes a complete ass of herself on the internet, interview him.
-
Obama's Shameful Refusal to Attend Scalia's Funeral
By Charles Lipson
February 18, 2016
President Obama's decision not to attend Justice Antonin Scalia's funeral is shameful. It mirrors his decision to skip the state funeral for Margaret Thatcher in 2013. On these somber, formal occasions, the president is called upon to represent our country as the head of state. He is not representing his party, his political agenda, or himself personally. He is representing our country—or at least he should be. On Saturday, it is his duty to mourn a man who sat on the Supreme Court for decades. He is shirking that duty.
The president is rarely asked to serve as head of state. Most of the time, he serves in explicitly political positions, heading the executive branch and his party. He plays that political role when he sends a bill to Congress, issues an executive order, or campaigns for an embattled senator. Wearing that hat, he can be as partisan as he wishes (or thinks prudent). That’s perfectly fine.
But on those rare occasions when called upon to act as our nation's head of state, he must quash those partisan instincts. At such times, he speaks for us all.
One of President Reagan’s finest moments came in this regard, speaking at the funeral for the crew killed on the space shuttle Challenger. His opening words: “We come together today to mourn the loss of seven brave Americans, to share the grief we all feel and, perhaps in that sharing, to find the strength to bear our sorrow and the courage to look for the seeds of hope.” His opening words are the key to a head-of-state role: “We come together today . . . “
Three days earlier, just after the tragedy, Reagan spoke to the nation. His words still echo. “The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God.’”
President Obama need not reach these rhetorical heights. But he ought to behave with quiet dignity and represent our nation at Scalia’s funeral. He does not have to pretend he agreed with Scalia’s decisions. He does not have to praise the justice’s judicial philosophy. But he ought to honor the life of a man who spent three decades on the Supreme Court and five years before that on the U.S. appellate bench.
Refusing to attend the funeral does more than insult the memory of a life-long public servant. It is a failure to perform a basic presidential duty. Obama has shirked his responsibility to all of us.
RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science and the founder and director of the Program on International Politicis, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago. He can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/18/obamas_shameful_refusal_to_attend_scalias_funeral_129702.html
-
Jesus Fucking Christ ....how about changing your diapers already and stop all the crying.
I for one am glad that Obama can finally stop all the political ass kissing of Republicans
Scalia oppossed everything that Obama and the Dems did and by all accounts they didn't have any kind of personal relationship
The White House is being represented by Biden and I hope Obama spends the day playing golf and drinking beer
-
Jesus Fucking Christ ....how about changing your diapers already and stop all the crying.
I for one am glad that Obama can finally stop all the political ass kissing of Republicans
Scalia oppossed everything that Obama and the Dems did and by all accounts they didn't have any kind of personal relationship
The White House is being represented by Biden and I hope Obama spends the day playing golf and drinking beer
Refresh me as to when he kissed republican ass. Was it when he said he has a pen and he isn't afraid to use it?
Weren't you the one that started a "fuck mitch McConnell" thread only to find out that Obama voted for the same thing on 2006? That thread seemed to be started by an emotional sissy and looked an awful lot like crying.
You found it deplorable when you thought McConnell's behavior was isolated to republicans, now it's no big deal and you are just fine with the president drinking beer or doing whatever he wants while an active member of the supreme court dies. One could argue that you are blind to Obama's faults and would support him no matter what.
-
Refresh me as to when he kissed republican ass. Was it when he said he has a pen and he isn't afraid to use it?
Weren't you the one that started a "fuck mitch McConnell" thread only to find out that Obama voted for the same thing on 2006? That thread seemed to be started by an emotional sissy and looked an awful lot like crying.
You found it deplorable when you thought McConnell's behavior was isolated to republicans, now it's no big deal and you are just fine with the president drinking beer or doing whatever he wants while an active member of the supreme court dies. One could argue that you are blind to Obama's faults and would support him no matter what.
every single time he tried to compromise with Republicans
and yes Fuck Mitch McConnell for dismissing the will of 60 million + voters
If Repubs want to attempt a filibuster that's fine with me
-
every single time he tried to compromise with Republicans
and yes Fuck Mitch McConnell for dismissing the will of 60 million + voters
If Repubs want to attempt a filibuster that's fine with me
Wow, your first statement doesn't even leave any room to argue your blind ignorant faith to obama anymore. Compromise isn't saying "you better do this" or i'll push it through. That's a bully tactic.
I think obama should get to choose whomever he wants. That being said, some would argue that many are tired of obama, and awaiting change via an election and no longer happy with his policy, presidency, etc. If that is the case, then an argument could be made to await the new president. I certainly don't agree with that. I think he should get to pick whomever he wants, even if i'm likely not to care for them personally.
You are only saying you are okay with filibuster now that you know obama was involved in it, and it lessens your argument against republicans current course of action. It gives you some wiggle room to look like less of an ass, given how passionate you were against mcconnell.
-
Wow, your first statement doesn't even leave any room to argue your blind ignorant faith to obama anymore. Compromise isn't saying "you better do this" or i'll push it through. That's a bully tactic.
I think obama should get to choose whomever he wants. That being said, some would argue that many are tired of obama, and awaiting change via an election and no longer happy with his policy, presidency, etc. If that is the case, then an argument could be made to await the new president. I certainly don't agree with that. I think he should get to pick whomever he wants, even if i'm likely not to care for them personally.
You are only saying you are okay with filibuster now that you know obama was involved in it, and it lessens your argument against republicans current course of action. It gives you some wiggle room to look like less of an ass, given how passionate you were against mcconnell.
like virtually every republican for the last 7 years?
people die
Scalia was a person
The White House will be represented
Obama won two elections and is in his last year and doesn't have to kiss ass
read my earlier posts if you need more information
-
No Respect(s): Obama to Skip Scalia Funeral
President makes nearly unheard of decision to miss funeral of sitting justice
by Ashley Pratte
“We are fools for Christ and we must pray for the courage to ignore the scorn of the sophisticated world.” — the late Antonin Scalia, in 2012
As the nation continues to mourn the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia, the White House said President Obama will not attend the justice’s funeral this Saturday, though it was not clear why. This will be the first time in over 60 years that a president will miss the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court justice.
According to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, Vice President Joe Biden will attend the service on behalf of the White House.
The president’s decision not to attend the service is seen by some as a snub to the conservative Supreme Court giant, who earned the scorn of many liberals.
At the White House daily briefing Wednesday, Earnest would not confirm if there was anything on the president's schedule that would prevent him from attending. When pressed further on Obama's schedule and whether or not he would be golfing on Saturday, Earnest deflected. "I don’t have a sense of what the president’s plans are for Saturday," he said.
Golfing, a favorite weekend activity of the president, is therefore not officially off the table — especially with a beautiful, sunny, 62-degree day expected in the Washington, D.C. area on Saturday.
Obama, along with the first lady, plans to pay respects in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia’s body will lie in repose on Friday.
Funerals Obama Should Have Attended, but Didn't
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
'American Sniper' Chris Kyle
Journalist James Foley
Slain NYPD officers Liu and Ramos
Major Gen. Harold Greene
This isn’t the first time Obama hasn’t shown leadership or respect for the office he holds. In August 2014, Major General Harold Greene passed away and was the first U.S. general to die in combat since the Vietnam War. During the funeral service, Obama was golfing in Martha’s Vineyard while on vacation. Then, in September 2014, when journalist James Foley was beheaded by ISIS, the president took a quick break from his vacation to publicly address the brutal act, but hit the golf links immediately after.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was the last sitting Supreme Court justice to pass away, in 2005. President George W. Bush attended the funeral and even delivered the eulogy at the service.
When Justice Robert H. Jackson died in 1954 while still serving on the Supreme Court, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was president at the time, was unable to attend the services. But he sent a four-foot wreath of white carnations in the shape of the cross.
The White House had very few details on the extent of the executive branch's involvement in the funeral proceedings. It could not say whether the vice president would give a eulogy.
The Associated Press reported the funeral for Justice Scalia will be held at 11 a.m. on Saturday at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/no-respects-obama-to-skip-scalia-funeral/
-
Hillary has no regrets about trying to filibuster Alito, Roberts
(http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2016/02/18/DEM_2016_Clinton.JPEG-0171b_c0-72-4992-2982_s885x516.jpg?c81293199a1375c27bf779f5c41578a920fad5a2)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she didn’t believe in the philosophy of Samuel A. Alito Jr. or John G. Roberts Jr. while she was serving in the Senate. (Associated Press) more >
By Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Thursday, February 18, 2016
Hillary Clinton said she has no guilt for trying to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s nomination while she served in the Senate, nor for voting against Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s nomination.
She said her actions weren’t partisan and are no excuse for Senate Republicans to delay the process of filling the court vacancy after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
“I did oppose Justice Alito and, as you say, Chief Justice Roberts because after meeting with them, listening to them, I did not believe that their judicial philosophy and approach was one that would be the best for the country,” Mrs. Clinton said to Chuck Todd, who moderated MSNBC’s Democratic town hall event Thursday.
“So I spoke against him, I voted against him, but we had a process,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The nomination was made, and we went through the process. What the Republicans today are saying is you can’t vote on anything. We don’t want the president to send us a nominee. I think that is very different.
“What I am saying is, No. 1, the president has the right and the obligation under the Constitution to send forth a nominee, and the Senate has an obligation under the Constitution to decide whether to approve or not,” Mrs. Clinton said.
When Mr. Todd challenged Mrs. Clinton saying if her filibuster of Justice Alito was successful, his nomination would never had come to a vote, Mrs. Clinton blamed Senate procedure.
“That’s the way the Senate operates,” Mrs. Clinton replied. “You get to have a vote, you get to use the rules — Harry Reid’s sitting here — he’s a master of the rules — you get to use the rules that happens a lot.”
On Wednesday, President Obama, who also moved to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination, expressed regret for the action.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Mr. Obama’s decision to filibuster was a “symbolic vote” based on objections to Mr. Alito’s rulings as a lower-court judge.
“What the president rejects is that Senate Democrats didn’t focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections,” Mr. Earnest said. “Instead, some Democrats engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process. And that’s an approach that the president regrets.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/hillary-clinton-has-no-regrets-about-trying-filibu/
-
I stand by my words...
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/02/18/obama-first-sitting-president-in-history-to-miss-funeral-of-supreme-court-justice/
Obama First Sitting President in History to Miss Funeral of Supreme Court Justice
By Lori Updated
02/18/2016
Megyn Kelly stated Thursday evening on The Kelly File that she can find no instance in history where a sitting president of the United States has failed to attend the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It’s an unprecedented move on the part of Obama, who once again fails to uphold his duty as president, represent the country and set an example for the American people.
In lieu of attending the funeral on Saturday, President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will visit the Supreme Court Friday to pay their respects as Justice Antonin Scalia lies in repose. Of note, there is nothing on the president’s calendar that would prevent him from attending or conflict with the funeral.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden will attend the funeral at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. According to Earnest, the vice president’s “security footprint is a little bit lighter,” and he has a longtime relationship with Scalia’s family.
But many have slammed Obama for not attending the funeral of the longtime conservative justice, interpreting it as a sign of disrespect.
“If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with,” Obama’s former “car czar” Steven Rattner tweeted with a link to a headline about Obama skipping the funeral.
According to Politico, there’s not substantial historic precedent for presidents attending the funerals of sitting justices. President George W. Bush not only attended, but also eulogized Supreme Court Chief Justice and fellow conservative William Rehnquist in 2005. Prior to that, the last justice to die in office was Robert H. Jackson in 1954.
On Thursday, presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz dubbed Obama “a lawless and faithless president who’s eager to travel to Cuba but unwilling to attend the funeral of Justice Scalia.”
Tim Miller, the communications director for Jeb Bush, simply tweeted “Same.” in response to a message from MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who said, “Some amazing advice my mom gave me once: ‘If you’re wondering whether you should go to the funeral, you should go to the funeral.”
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/02/18/obama-first-sitting-president-in-history-to-miss-funeral-of-supreme-court-justice/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link
-
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/9e98f17/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fe0%2Fd7%2F8f9d8e7a433faf842ffc7b046d7c%2F5-michael-ramirez-creators.jpg)
-
Biden Urged to Hold Off on Supreme Court Nominees in '92
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=dda0b6b3-17d8-4f36-ac18-5863fd4cf102&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Biden Urged to Hold Off on Supreme Court Nominees in '92 (CSPAN via Twitter)
By Greg Richter | Monday, 22 Feb 2016
CSPAN has uncovered video of then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 urging the Senate not to hold confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in the final year of President George H.W. Bush's term because it could cause "deep trouble" for the institution.
CSPAN posted a clip of Biden's speech on Monday as Republicans and Democrats debate whether President Barack Obama should be able to name a replacement for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died earlier this month. The appointment of a more liberal jurist would swing the balance of the court for upcoming cases that would be decided on a close 5-4 split.
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed, Biden, then a Delaware senator said from the Senate floor on June 25, 1992.
There was no vacancy on the Supreme Court at the time and the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party. But if a vacancy did occur and Bush insisted on making a nomination, the Senate should refuse to act, Biden argued.
"It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Filmore and Johnson, and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over," Biden said.
"And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times," Biden said, noting that some likely would say he was making the statement only in the hopes that a Democrat won the presidency and was able to name the next justice.
"But that would not be our intention," Biden insisted, adding that if a nomination did come before the Senate the body should consider not holding hearings until after the election.
"Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season was underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," he said. "That is what is fair to the nominee, and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
Biden's counsel in 1992 is not being heeded by current Democrats who argue the now Republican-controlled Senate should confirm an Obama nominee in timely fashion. Republicans have vowed to delay the process.
Biden, now vice president, suggested his boss will go with a judicial candidate already confirmed by Republicans at a lower level and that Republicans should confirm him or her.
"In order to get this done, the president is not going to be able to go out — nor would it be his instinct, anyway — to pick the most liberal jurist in the nation and put them on the court," Biden told Minnesota Public Radio. "There are plenty of judges (who) are on high courts already who have had unanimous support of the Republicans."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-biden-supreme-court-justice-nomination/2016/02/22/id/715579/#ixzz40wglX5rw
-
McConnell: No Vote on Obama Court Nominee
Tuesday, 23 Feb 2016
Some senior U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved to slam the door shut on any Supreme Court nomination President Barack Obama will make as they voiced opposition to even committee hearings on a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
"That's the consensus view. ... No hearing, no vote," Senate Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham told reporters after leaving a private meeting of the panel's Republicans with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Separately, Senator John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican behind McConnell, said, "Correct," when asked by Reuters whether the path forward on any Obama nominee would be to deny that person a committee hearing.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley had previously left open the possibility of convening hearings once Obama nominates a justice. He was not immediately available for comment.
Earlier on Tuesday, in remarks on the Senate floor, McConnell said: "Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent. In this case, the Senate will withhold it."
Instead, McConnell said the Senate will await the outcome of November's presidential and congressional elections before considering any replacement for Scalia, who died on Feb. 13.
McConnell acknowledged Obama's constitutional right to offer a replacement for Scalia. But he said even Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, had argued back in 1992 for postponing action on Supreme Court nominees during an election year.
Senate Republicans were seizing on Biden's position more than two decades ago to bolster their argument for awaiting the selection of a new president before replacing Scalia.
"The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today," the Kentucky Republican added, referring to the Nov. 8 presidential election.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid condemned McConnell's attitude as "obstruction on steroids."
"Gone are the days of levelheadedness and compromise," the Nevada Democrat said.
Biden made the statements referenced by McConnell in 1992, when Biden was Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. Biden has said he was speaking hypothetically because there was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time.
Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, said Obama should nominate "the most qualified, the most confirmable, the most centrist candidate possible," to help convince more Republicans that they should at least consider the nominee. He noted that some Republicans, including Senator Mark Kirk, have already said the Senate should do so.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/senate-no-scotus-nominee/2016/02/23/id/715709/#ixzz411S9Xrdo
-
-
I wonder if Biden will be standing next to President Obama in the Rose Garden when he announces his pick? Pretty blatant hypocrisy.
-
I’m a liberal lawyer. Clerking for Scalia taught me how to think about the law.
I wanted the job because I was eager to learn how someone so brilliant could see the world so differently than I did.
By Tara Kole
February 17, 2016
Tara Kole is a partner in the law firm of Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown, Inc. and a lecturer at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.
When I was in law school, a Supreme Court clerkship was the Holy Grail. For me, it was clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia. Now that I’m a partner in a law firm that serves the notoriously progressive entertainment industry, the fact that I once clerked for Scalia often elicits looks of surprise from those sitting across from me, who ask if I’m the functional equivalent of a unicorn — a conservative in Los Angeles — a place that Scalia had amusingly warned me would “melt my brain.” I tell them, no, I’m politically liberal, but that my time working for the justice was one of the defining experiences of my life.
I’d heard all through law school that Scalia always hired one liberal clerk, though my sense is that this practice had waned in recent years. In fact, the process of applying for a Supreme Court clerkship entails applying to all nine justices — the notion being that justices choose clerks and not the other way around. But Justice Scalia was the person for whom I most wanted to work, not because we were ideologically aligned, but because we were not. It had to do with the way he was so deeply vilified — both personally, and as a jurist — by so many of my classmates. He was discussed in almost cartoonish fashion, conjuring images of twirled mustaches and barely-concealed devil horns. It was a time, just after Bush v. Gore and 9/11, when battle lines had been drawn, and it was politically correct to reject wholesale any belief that was not your own.
That approach made me uncomfortable, and I found myself becoming more and more interested in Justice Scalia’s work, eager to understand how someone so clearly brilliant could see the world so differently than I did. It’s why I took the job.
And, in some ways, the job is a strange one. To assist in the writing of opinions, clerks have to get inside a justice’s mind to think as they do and to write as they would. My role was to facilitate his, and sometimes that was easier than others. In one case I worked on writing a dissent — the position held by a minority of the court — with which I fundamentally disagreed on a moral level, but found, as I wrote, that I was drawn to Scalia’s reasoning; his emphasis on precedent, strict textual construction and judicial restraint. While I remain bound not to discuss details of the cases I worked on, I can say that Scalia’s arguments in that case conveyed a clarity not found in the majority’s opinion, which relied on legal and verbal gymnastics in order to reach the desired outcome. His approach had a logic and simplicity that resonated with me, despite my politics. I found myself able to get inside his mind in that moment, to sublimate my own views, and write confidently in his voice. I was proud when my co-clerk told me that Scalia had called it a “knock out.”
There were other days, though, where I found myself sitting on Scalia’s worn leather couch, looking up at Leroy — the mounted elk’s head that dominated the justice’s chambers — wondering how both Leroy and I had gotten there, as Scalia and my three conservative co-clerks all found common ground that I simply could not access. “You really think that?” and “That can’t be right,” were refrains I heard often in response to bench memos I prepared in advance of oral argument.
I’ll admit that I went back and forth between playing the part of contrarian and simply trying to give the justice the recommendations he was looking for. There were times I was pleased when he noted my penchant for disagreement. Once, when my co-clerk gave him a draft of an important opinion, Scalia nodded toward me, smiled and said, “Let’s give it to Mikey,” quoting the old Life cereal commercial, “She doesn’t like anything.” In those moments, I felt I had license to challenge Justice Scalia, and my arguments were always met with energetic debate and his eagerness to prove me wrong. At other times I simply wanted his approval, and for him to tell me that I was finally thinking “right” — which he meant with its full double-entendre.
I missed the mark a few times when I made assumptions about what Justice Scalia would think, based on his political leanings. In one particular criminal case, I tried to anticipate his reaction and gave him the analysis I thought he wanted. But when I suggested he might want to follow the more conventionally conservative line of thinking, he looked at me incredulously and said, “We can’t do that.” There was another case, where we were tasked with writing the majority opinion, when I saw him struggle and ultimately change his mind after realizing that the text of the statute would not support the position he initially wanted to take. That was the one time the Justice — who was very respectful of personal time and valued his own — called me on a weekend and asked me to come into chambers. As we worked through the case together, the power went out in our wing of the Court. Rather than taking a break, we moved our chairs and books into the hallway, using the natural light that came through the courtyard. This prompted Justice David Souter (who was famously averse to using modern technology, including, seemingly, the light bulb) to poke fun at our inability to read in dim light.
If there was a true surprise during my year clerking for Scalia, it was how little reference he made to political outcomes. What he cared about was the law, and where the words on the page took him. More than any one opinion, this will be his lasting contribution to legal thought. Whatever our beliefs, he forced lawyers and scholars to engage on his terms — textual analysis and original meaning. He forced us all to acknowledge that words cannot mean anything we want them to mean; that we have to impose a degree of discipline on our thinking. A discipline I value to this day.
Justice Scalia treated me with enormous respect and always seemed to value my opinion — a heady experience for someone just a year out of law school. I never felt as though he looked at me differently than my conservative counterparts; his trust felt implicit, which is, perhaps, why I struggled so much between wanting to challenge him and wanting to please. He was also, hands down, the smartest person I’ve ever known. What would take me weeks to understand would take him minutes to process. I’ll never forget my first experience handing him an opinion and watching him, in a matter of minutes, type a few lines into his typewriter (yes, a typewriter, even in 2004), and instantly cut to the heart of the issue in a way that I’d simply been unable to do. When I read his new draft, I realized that I’d tried too hard to bridge the difference between his opinion and that of another justice in order to hold our majority. His changes strengthened the argument but also, I feared, risked putting us in the dissent. But Justice Scalia didn’t compromise his principles, even on the smallest issues.
He knew his own mind, and taught me the importance of knowing my own.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/17/im-a-liberal-lawyer-clerking-for-scalia-taught-me-how-to-think-about-the-law/?tid=a_inl
-
Smart man.
GOP Gov. Sandoval says not interested in Supreme Court nomination
Published February 25, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/02/25/gop-gov-sandoval-says-not-interested-in-supreme-court-nomination/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1456426783370.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Feb. 20, 2016: Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval participates in the National Governors Association Winter Meeting in Washington. (AP)
Thanks, but no thanks.
That was the answer Thursday from Nevada Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval following reports that President Obama was considering him as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. Sandoval says he’s already told the White House he’s not interested.
“Earlier today, I notified the White House that I do not wish to be considered at this time for possible nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Sandoval said in a statement, adding he’s told key Senate leaders the same. “The notion of being considered for a seat on the highest court in the land is beyond humbling and I am incredibly grateful to have been mentioned.”
It remains unclear how serious the White House may have been about considering Sandoval.
The nomination of any Republican to the seat left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia would be seen as an attempt by Obama to break the Senate GOP blockade of any of his choices.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said his 54-member GOP caucus is opposed to holding confirmation hearings or a vote on Obama's pick, insisting that the choice rests with the next president.
Whether GOP senators would ease their opposition with a Republican nominee is an open question. But on the campaign trail, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton already had come out against the Sandoval nomination idea.
“There has been some talk maybe the president will nominate the Republican governor of Nevada. Now I love Nevada … and I know the governor has done some good things, but I sure hope the president chooses a true progressive who will stand up for the values and the interests of the people of this country,” she said earlier Thursday.
The White House still won’t confirm that Sandoval was under consideration.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama plans to meet next week with leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and “intensive consultation” on a nomination will continue.
Sandoval's communications director said Wednesday that the governor had not been contacted by the White House.
Sandoval met with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Monday in Washington while he was in town for a meeting of the National Governors Association. On Thursday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she thought it would be a good idea for President Obama to nominate a Republican.
Before Sandoval, 52, became the state's first Hispanic governor, he was the state's first Hispanic federal judge. He supports abortion. But liberal groups swiftly came out against the nomination idea.
"Nominating Sandoval to the Supreme Court would not only prevent grassroots organizations like Democracy for America from supporting the president in this nomination fight, it could lead us to actively encouraging Senate Democrats to oppose his appointment," said Democracy for America.
Limited to two terms, Sandoval's final term as governor expires in early 2019. He announced last year that he would not seek Reid's seat, in this November's election, a race in which Sandoval would have been a strong favorite.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/25/gop-gov-sandoval-says-not-interested-in-supreme-court-nomination.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
Obama looking for 'consensus' pick to Supreme Court
By Kevin Liptak and Evan Perez, CNN
Mon March 14, 2016
Washington (CNN)—President Barack Obama is looking for a "consensus candidate" to nominate to the Supreme Court who could gain broad support from Democrats and Republicans, he said in an interview airing Monday on CNN.
"It is my intention to nominate somebody who has impeccable credentials, somebody who should be a consensus candidate, is deserving to be on the Supreme Court, and I will continue to challenge the Republicans in the Senate who suggest somehow that they don't have to do their job in providing that the nominee hearing and a vote," Obama told CNN en Español anchor Juan Carlos Lopez.
"I'm moving forward on interviewing candidates, and I will be making a determination soon," Obama said in the interview taped last week. While interviews for potential candidates were thought to be underway, Obama and his aides had previously refused to publicly comment.
Liberal groups have been closely communicating with the White House on strategy, including during meetings and conference calls that began the week after Justice Antonin Scalia died in mid-February.
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have said they will not hold a hearing with the potential high court nominee, wishing to leave the decision to the next president. And the Republican National Committee is preparing to fight the pick as well.
Obama's announcement is expected as early as this week, pending final vetting on a small list of candidates for the high court. Sources have told CNN that three sitting federal appellate judges top the list: Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit, and Paul Watford, who serves on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California.
All three would fit Obama's description of a "consensus candidate" that previously have gained support from Republican senators, though Srinivasan was confirmed the most recently, in 2013, and with the broadest support from the GOP (he was confirmed unanimously).
In previous interviews and remarks, Obama hasn't said specifically that he's seeking a candidate with Republican appeal. At a news conference three days after Scalia's death, Obama told reporters that he wasn't necessarily going to name a moderate nominee. In multiple settings, Obama has said only that he's seeking candidates who have solid records, a respect for the court's role, and an ability to bring real-life experience to the bench.
Others in the administration, including Vice President Joe Biden, have pushed for a nominee that's previously enjoyed Republican support.
Speaking Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest indicated that Obama continued to review background material on potential candidates the weekend, but wouldn't give an indication of whether he's narrowed his shortlist.
"There's ample time for the President to make a decision and for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to offer its advice and consent and still have the President's nominee seated on the Supreme Court before the next term starts," Earnest said.
White House outreach
The White House's outreach is coordinated by former White House staffer Stephanie Cutter, who has led sessions with grassroots groups designed to cement a strategy once a nominee is named. The beginnings of a pressure campaign have centered on select Republican lawmakers: Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has steadfastly refused to budge considering Obama's eventual nominee, along with a group of vulnerable Republicans up for reelection in November.
A source involved in the effort said the pressure campaign is designed to force the GOP to crack by the end of June -- before the party's nominating conventions and the August recess.
"The coordinated grassroots effort that has already proven a powerful tool to put pressure on Republicans will only ramp up," a former White House communications official who is helping coordinate the public roll-out of the President's nominee. "We will be mobilizing our network of allies in the states to promote the nominee, and to continue to pressure Republicans on their position of obstruction. That includes events in targeted states with real working Americans pushing Senate Republicans to do their jobs, press events with key Democratic members and groups, and coordinated validator pushes like those with the legal scholars, historians, law deans and attorneys general."
Obama's disclosure that he is seeking a "consensus candidate" fits into that strategy. If enough Republicans have previously supported Obama's pick for a lower court, the White House hopes to cast them as politically driven if they refuse to consider the name for the Supreme Court.
Liberal groups have already begun those efforts, including organizing rallies in senators' home states to advocate hearings for Obama's eventual nominee. Democratic activists rallied at courthouses in Iowa this weekend to urge Grassley, who represents the state, to reconsider his position staunchly opposing hearings for the Obama pick.
Difficulty getting Republican cooperation
But the White House's effort to find Republican lawyers willing to offer testimonials on behalf of a potential high court nominee has run into some hurdles, according to people close to the process. Some former clerks and legal colleagues who know the finalists have balked at the prospect of becoming part of a partisan fight over the nomination, they said.
The testimonials are part of the communications strategy of every nomination process, and typically White House officials and outside consultants providing assistance help prepare bipartisan voices to help bolster the case for a nominee.
In recent days, officials helping organize the testimonials have reached out to people who are known to have worked with potential nominees and who have Republican affiliations. The negative response from some shows the pressure building on both sides of the political aisle even before the president announces his pick.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on this point.
And Republicans are planning a coordinated effort to discredit Obama's nominee, led by the party's national committee. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said his "SCOTUS task force" would amount to "the most comprehensive judicial response effort in our party's history."
The strategy includes media appearances and opposition research on potential selections, as well as highlighting past statements from Democrats demonstrating support for withholding Supreme Court nominations in election years.
One conservative group, the Judicial Crisis Network, said it was spending six figures to lambast a potential nominee, Jane Kelly, in markets around the country. The ad hits the former public defender, who now serves on the federal bench, for representing a child molester.
Targeting Grassley
Democrats pushed back sharply on the depiction, calling on Grassley, the Judiciary panel chairman, and other Republicans to denounce the Kelly ad. Kelly serves on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and is based in Iowa.
"It is an adult moment for Grassley to set the tone going forward that these kinds of tactics by his friends on the right are not welcome in this process -- a process that should be free of these type of political smears," said Brad Woodhouse, the president of the liberal group Americans United for Change.
Grassley will be a primary focus of Democratic pressure.
A Democrat challenging Grassley for his Senate seat, Patty Judge, has vowed to keep the issue at the forefront in her campaign against him. In other races around the country, including in New Hampshire and Alaska, the issue has similarly entered the campaign trail rhetoric. Activist groups are planning events in senators' home states during next week's congressional recess.
Grassley has shown little indication of backing down, facing equal pressure from conservatives to maintain his position. A person who met with Grassley recently said he pounded the table at one point to emphasize that he won't reconsider his stance.
The Democrats' effort will include leveraging law professors and experts who argue against allowing a seat to remain vacant on the Supreme Court for months. The latest came from Patricia Wald and John Gibbons, former chief judges of federal appeals court, who wrote in a letter to Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that a full component of judges "is essential to the Court's primary function of declaring what the law is in a rapidly moving society where crises frequently arise."
Depending on the outcome of the Republican primary, Obama's allies will also point to a potential Donald Trump nominee as the alternative -- a prospect that Republican senators, some of whom haven't even said they'll support Trump if he's the nominee, are loathe to embrace.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/politics/obama-supreme-court-interview-consensus/index.html
-
Is that the same Chuck Schumer that received 116,000 from trump, as late as 2009?
http://observer.com/2015/12/charles-schumer-wont-return-donations-from-donald-trump/
-
Reactions to Garland Nomination
By Sara Randazzo
—Associated Press
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-KT630_CLASSA_G_20151014164643.jpg)
Is U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland a compromise pick for the U.S. Supreme Court or the most qualified candidate for the bench? Initial reactions were mixed Wednesday.
UC Irvine School of Law professor Rick Hasen, writing on Election Law Blog, calls it a compromise, saying “Garland is indeed a moderate, someone who will not excite the Democratic base the way other nominations would.” Judge Garland’s age, 63, almost 15 years senior to leading contender U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sri Srinivasan, could also be a factor, Mr. Hasen writes. “In short, Garland’s age, which may make some liberals oppose his nomination, may be precisely what is attractive to the President who actually wants to appoint someone to #SCOTUS, and not just put up the human pinata.”
Vikram Amar, a constitutional scholar at University of Illinois College of Law who has studied the confirmation process, said Judge Garland is better positioned than some of the other potential nominees to be “willing to be what might be a sacrificial lamb.” The chances of a confirmation going through seem slim, Mr. Amar said, and Republicans may worry about the optics of deviating from their stance of blocking a nominee now that it’s not a person of color. That said, “if they were to take a step back, this really is someone they should be open to.”
David Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer at Baker & Hostetler who worked in the White House during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said the confirmation process needs to be postponed until after the presidential election to preserve the “brittle” legitimacy of the Supreme Court. “The court has been relentlessly attacked for decades,” he said, and its approval rating is waning. “Having a confirmation process in the middle of an ugly presidential election battle is going to deliver another blow to the court’s legitimacy.” As for Judge Garland, “he’s a perfectly credible nominee,” Mr. Rivkin said, but the confirmation process needs to wait.
Writing for the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler from Case Western Reserve University School of Law said Judge Garland’s reputation for writing narrow opinions that rarely break new ground doesn’t give much of an indication of how he’d lean as a Supreme Court justice. “If Judge Garland is in the position to make precedent as opposed to following it, it’s harder to predict what path he would take,” Mr. Adler said in an interview. Mr. Adler predicts Judge Garland could be closer to the center than Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said Judge Garland would “create a solid liberal majority on the court that could really run the tables on a laundry list of liberal agenda items.” She said the Republican Senate is correct to block the nomination, because their function is to be a check on a president who’s “been particularly disrespectful of the constitutional limits of his role.” The Senate is committed, she said, to “making sure the American people get a voice in who should select the next Supreme Court justice.”
UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said Judge Garland, who he’s known since high school debate competitions, is “brilliant, he’s impeccably qualified, he has no liberal paper trail. He’s everything Obama would want as a consensus pick. I think what Obama has done is pick somebody that’s unassailable. Whatever professional qualifications would make one suitable for the Supreme Court, Merrick has: Harvard Law School, clerked on the Supreme Court, big firm practice, prosecutor, 20 years on the DC. circuit.”
Ethics and Public Policy Center President Edward Whelan, writing for National Review, said that while Judge Garland is “as good a nominee as anyone President Obama might plausibly have selected. …I believe that Garland would move the Court markedly to the Left and that Senate Republicans should and must adhere to their position that no nominee should receive Senate consideration before the election.”
In an interview, Seth Waxman, an appellate partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and former Solicitor General who’s known Judge Garland for decades, said: “He’s exceptionally modest and careful in everything that he does. He’s a consensus builder, and has a very keen analytic mind. When other judges are off in the summer taking their vacations, Merrick is in his chambers polishing his opinions.” As chief judge of a historically fractious D.C. Circuit, “Merrick has done a wonderful job to, I think, lower the temperature and promote the work of the court as a collegial institution,” he said.
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe said via email: “Judge Garland is a brilliant jurist whom I’ve admired ever since he was my constitutional law student. His modesty, humility, and moderation make him a particularly suitable choice for these divided times.”
Robert Schapiro, dean of Emory University School of Law, said by email: “Confirming Garland would avoid the risk of a younger, more liberal nominee from would-be President Hillary Clinton. …Republicans will be hard pressed to find any ground other than pure politics to block Garland’s confirmation.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/03/16/early-reactions-to-garland-nomination/
-
MAY 19, 2005 | CLIP OF SENATE SESSION
Reid: No Duty To Give Nominees A Vote Sen. Harry Reid:
“The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581302/reid-duty-give-nominees-vote
-
I think they would get further with the people if they actually at least voted on it.
If you truly don't like the guy and refuse to confirm him, that's one thing, but at least vote.
I don't think being completely obstructionist is doing the party any favors, but that's just my opinion.
-
I think they would get further with the people if they actually at least voted on it.
If you truly don't like the guy and refuse to confirm him, that's one thing, but at least vote.
I don't think being completely obstructionist is doing the party any favors, but that's just my opinion.
x2
Both the POTUS and Congress have a duty to do their job and Repubs control the Senate so if they don't like they nominee they can just vote against him
They can even filibuster if they want to. That fine within prevailing rules of the Senate
just do their fucking jobs
-
MAY 19, 2005 | CLIP OF SENATE SESSION
Reid: No Duty To Give Nominees A Vote Sen. Harry Reid:
“The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581302/reid-duty-give-nominees-vote
Sooooooooooooo
harry Reid is a liberal piece of shit...
OR Harry reid is a credible law scholar whose words should be used as precedent a decade later. When convenient.
I love how repubs tear down these worthless libs 24/7... UNTIL they find something they agree with from 1992, and then it's suddenly "oh, let's all follow the Biden Doctrine!" Douchey.
-
Senate Republicans Block Obama 'Recess Appointment' of Garland
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=b9ee85cf-3e18-4559-b940-8552aedd34fc&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Senate Republicans Block Obama 'Recess Appointment' of Garland (AP)
By Greg Richter | Sunday, 20 Mar 2016
Senate Republicans are denying President Barack Obama the chance to make a recess appointment to get his nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, onto the Supreme Court in his last year in office – by holding sessions during the recess period.
The Senate is scheduled to be on recess for the next two weeks, which would allow Obama to appoint Garland to the seat left vacant by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. without Senate action.
But Republicans control the Senate, and have scheduled twice weekly pro forma sessions — which will keep the body formally out of recess. These sessions, in which no business will be conducted, would be enough to block any unilateral move by Obama.
"It's very smart for the Senate to take every conceivable precaution to ensure the president doesn’t try to recess appoint his nominee," Brian Rogers of America Rising Squared told The Washington Times.
Republicans have vowed to take every measure possible to prevent Obama's nominee from being seated – saying they will allow voters to pick the next president in November, and the winner will then be able to name the next justice.
With any Democrat sure to name someone less conservative than Scalia, an appointment by anyone other than a Republican president would shift the 5-4 balance of the court from conservative to liberal.
The Times notes that Obama's previous attempts make recess appointments of judges are fueling the Senate strategy to prevent him from making one to the high court.
When Obama made several such appointments in 2012 he was challenged by the Senate, which had been in pro forma sessions. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously two years later that those appointments were unconstitutional.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/senate-block-recess-appointment/2016/03/20/id/720029/#ixzz43Yl1ndmZ
-
Supreme Court Hands Down First 4-To-4 Decision Since Antonin Scalia’s Death
The ruling wasn’t major, but it offered a small taste of what an understaffed court is like.
03/22/2016
Cristian Farias
Legal Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/56f158c41500002a000b2cf7.jpeg)
ALEX WONG VIA GETTY IMAGES
The late justice wasn’t big on 4-to-4 ties.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued its first evenly split ruling since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia: a decision in a minor banking case involving spouses who serve as guarantors for each other’s debts.
The 4-to-4 ruling was “per curiam,” which means it was handed down in the name of the entire court, and nobody really knows what justice was on which side.
The opinion was just one line long: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”
That means the ruling sets no nationwide precedent and leaves the lower-court ruling as the final decision in the case.
Leaving the law unsettled for now could potentially be good or bad news for major cases where future splits are a possibility — including pending disputes on abortion, affirmative action, public union fees, immigration and contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
In the public union fees case, for example, a 4-to-4 split would be an important victory for labor, since union advocates won that case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which skews liberal. (The unions didn’t do so well when the Supreme Court heard the case.)
But a split ruling in the abortion case, which is coming from the more conservative 5th Circuit, would represent a blow for women’s access to reproductive services, since the lower-court ruling upheld the Texas abortion clinic regulations being challenged.
If more splits do happen, the Supreme Court may consider these issues again in the future, but it probably won’t until the Senate decides to confirm Scalia’s replacement — whether that will be the recently nominated Merrick Garland or someone else is still anyone’s guess.
Which all underscores the need for a fully functioning Supreme Court. As Justice Anthony Kennedy once said at a congressional hearing, 4-4 ties “mean that everybody’s time is wasted.”
Or as Scalia himself put it once: “The Court proceeds with eight Justices, raising the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-first-4-4-split_us_56f1561de4b03a640a6ba559
-
This is why there needs to be a 5-4 of some sort. This renders the highest court in the land basically worthless. :-\
-
Supreme Court divided on ObamaCare contraception mandate
By Bill Mears
Published March 23, 2016
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court appeared deadlocked Wednesday along ideological lines as justices weighed another legal challenge to ObamaCare -- this one, brought by a religious nonprofit that objects to paying for insurance covering birth control.
The case before the court is a hot-button trifecta — health care, abortion and religious freedom — and concerns ObamaCare's controversial contraception mandate.
The eight justices will decide whether religious-affiliated institutions like the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity of nuns, can be exempt from having to pay for -- or indirectly allow -- birth control and other reproductive health coverage in their health plans.
But the First Amendment challenge coming amid an election-year vacancy at the Supreme Court leaves this legal fight very much up in the air, and may not be fully resolved until the vacancy is filled. A 4-4 split could leave the provision in place for now.
The 90 minutes of debate grew tense at times, highlighting the split on the current court. The justices drew ideological differences over the moral and administrative implications of the law, President Obama's signature domestic policy accomplishment.
"It can't be all my way. There has to be an accommodation, and that's what the government tried to do," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She said creating an exception for the nuns would open the "floodgates" to make the law unworkable.
But Chief Justice John Roberts repeated the nuns' rhetoric when saying the plaintiff "has used the phrase 'hijacking,' and it seems to me that that's an accurate description of what the government wants to do." He said, "They want to use the mechanism that the Little Sisters and the other petitioners have set up to provide services because they want the coverage to be seamless."
Members of the Little Sisters of the Poor rallied along with their supporters in front of the court Wednesday, many carrying signs and buttons with "I'll Have Nun of It." Nearby were supporters of abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act.
While the LSP leaders are nuns, the charity employs hundreds of lay workers who otherwise may be eligible for the insurance service. Similar non-profits would include certain hospitals, parochial schools, and private faith-based universities.
Churches and other houses of worship themselves are already separately exempt outright under rules established by the Obama administration.
The high court two years ago said the Little Sisters and its third-party insurance administrator could remain temporarily exempt from the mandates, while lower courts continued to wrangle with the merits of the primary challenge to the federal health law provisions on contraception.
After ObamaCare was passed in 2010, the White House negotiated what it called a compromise aimed at allowing the medical coverage but also providing an administrative workaround for those opposing it. The central dispute revolves around a requirement these groups self-certify -- and sign a form authorizing an outside administrator to provide contraceptives without the employers' direct involvement.
In the early stages of the litigation, the Supreme Court issued a temporary order in January 2014, saying the administration could not enforce the mandates, at least temporarily.
The rules were designed by the administration to give women employed at nonprofit, religious-based organizations the ability to receive contraception through separate health policies with no co-pay.
Lawyers for the nuns and related plaintiffs, told the court Wednesday their clients faced a "moral dilemma" -- refuse to comply and face millions in crippling fines, or violate what all sides agree are the nuns' "sincerely held" religious beliefs.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/23/supreme-court-divided-on-obamacare-contraception-mandate.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
Supreme Court upholds mandatory union fees in 4-4 tie
By Lydia Wheeler - 03/29/16
The Supreme Court upheld the legality of mandatory union fees for government workers in a 4-4 tie Tuesday.
The case had been expected to go against the unions, but in the absence of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a reliable conservative vote, the court instead deadlocked.
The split decision highlights what's at stake in the battle over President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. Had another Democratic appointee been on the court, the ruling could have swung in favor of unions by a 5-4 margin.
The case — known as Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association — centered on a California law that allows school districts to require public school teachers, as a condition of employment, to either join the union representing teachers in their district or pay the equivalent of dues to that union — typically 2 percent of a new teacher's salary.
The court’s even split lets stand a lower court ruling that requires teachers and other public employees to pay their “fair share” of union fees.
The justices issued only a short statement Tuesday saying the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court. No other explanation for their decision was provided.
A high court ruling against the fee requirement could have dealt a heavy blow to the financial power of labor unions.
During arguments in January, the court appeared deeply skeptical of the California law. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s likely swing voter, said then that there would be nothing to stop California from requiring every state employee to donate 1 percent of his or her salary to the governor’s election campaign.
"No one thinks, realistically, that's a voluntary decision to give money,” he said at the time. “There's only one purpose behind that kind of requirement, which is to inflate the governor's political war chest, just like the only purpose behind this is to, through inadvertence and neglect, inflate the union's war chest by people who really have not made a voluntary decision to do so.”
To rule in favor of the teachers, however, the court would have had to overturn the court’s 1977 decision to uphold union shops in public workplaces in a case known as Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Overturning past precedent is something the court is typically reluctant to do.
Union supporters were quick to praise the court for standing behind the nearly four-decades-old law.
“This marks a significant defeat for the wealthy special interests who want to hijack our economy, our democracy, and even the United States Supreme Court,” America Works Together said in a statement. “Millions of teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other public service workers will continue to be able to band together in a union in order to speak up for one another, improve their communities, and hold the wealthy and powerful accountable.”
The California Teachers Association (CTA) released a statement calling the lawsuit against it a “political ploy” that aimed to make it harder for working families and the middle class to come together.
“California’s educators will continue to work together to provide quality, safe and healthy schools as we continue to ensure our students get the quality public education they need and deserve. Now it’s time for senators to do their job and appoint a successor justice to the highest court in our land,” CTA’s president Eric Heins said in a statement.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/274543-supreme-court-upholds-mandatory-union-fees-in-4-4-tie