Author Topic: Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months  (Read 19133 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Will be interesting to hear his spin on this.

Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months

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/

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Yeah glad you dug this up.....

Its not about blocking any judge...just a nutbag leftist.
L

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5647
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Will be interesting to hear his spin on this.

Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months

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.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Rubio's bud, Schumer.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Will be interesting to hear his spin on this.

Chuck Schumer in 2007: Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees for 18 Months

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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
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


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana


fine, then Obama can nominate someone and the Repubs can filibuster (or attempt to filibuster) just like the Dems did



tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
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

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia

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

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5647
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
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.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia


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.

iwantmass

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 979
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?

iwantmass

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 979
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?

iwantmass

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 979


You weren't exactly throwing darts @ the bull's eye from 100 yards, in predicting obama to nominate a minority...

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'More Likely' to Replace Justice Scalia

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.
L

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

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.   

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
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.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
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

iwantmass

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 979
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. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Key Senator Undecided on Hearing for Obama High Court Pick

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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66488
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
'The Kelly File' Fact-Checks Pat Leahy's Supreme Court Flip-Flop
Feb 16, 2016 // 10:34pm
As seen on The Kelly File


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