Sen. Obama shows the GOP how to stop President Obama’s SCOTUS nomination

Loading

obama alito

 

The tragic loss of Antonin Scalia set off a political firestorm vis-a-vis his potential replacement. Mitch McConnell said there would be no replacement while Obama was President  and the left went berserk. Big mistake, opines WaPo.  The non-American British citizen John Oliver castigated the GOP for its position:

“Well, that does not bode well because Mitch McConnell is actually pretty good at delaying things for people—whether it’s legislation, court appointments, or orgasms,” joked Oliver. “Believe me, if you ever need to ‘delay, delay, delay’ [an orgasm], just picture [McConnell’s] face and I guarantee you nothing will happen possibly for the rest of your life.”

Barack Obama has even taken to “scolding” the GOP:

President Obama scolded Republican senators on Tuesday for threatening not to hold a vote on anyone he nominates to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Obama ripped Republicans for suggesting the Scalia vacancy will not be filled until a new president takes office, arguing “that’s not how the system is supposed to work.”

“The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to be happen now,” he said in remarks at a press conference following an international summit in California.

“When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination and either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court,” the president said. “Historically, this has not been viewed as a question, there is no unwritten law that says it can only be done on off years.

He claims to be “amused” by it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obamas-amused-at-gopers-pushing-back-on-scotus-im-accustomed-to-obstructionism/

 

As I have said repeatedly, being a liberal mean never having to remember yesterday.

Schmuck Schumer (D-NY) railed about conservatives accurately quoting him and his actions in 2007. With 18 months left in Bush’s second term, 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.”

Now he denies doing what he did and he screams “stop telling the truth!”

As a matter of fact, democrats blocked Republican nominees at least ten times.

8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.

Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.

9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.

“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

Democrats were reviled by Miguel Estrada because he was a freaking (shudder) “latino.”

Go back to February 2003, the first weeks of a new Republican majority in the Senate, when Democrats were blocking a vote on D.C. court nominee Miguel Estrada. Liberal writer Dahlia Lithwick at Slate covered the upheaval around the filibuster and chastised Republicans for “the grotesque claim that Estrada is being blocked because he is Hispanic.”

But of course, that was why Democrats were filibustering Estrada. In November 2001, as Democrats debated whether to undertake an unprecedented filibuster of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, liberal groups met with Senate Democrats.

But the path to the light was lit by Senator Barack Obama. Obama finds himself in an interesting situation. He is the first President in history to have called for a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.

And he did indeed vote to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito.

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on “This Week” that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”

Mr. Obama did seem to express some reserve about using the filibuster process, which in common parlance refers to a procedural Senate maneuver requiring 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote.

“I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues,” then-Sen. Obama said. “These last-minute efforts using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it, and we need to recognize because Judge Alito will be confirmed that if we’re going to oppose a nominee that we’ve got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake and frankly I’m not sure that we’ve successfully done that.”

This is what the GOP should do- vote to filibuster Obama’s nominee. Any number of them. And for the same reason obama did it.

How could anyone argue with that? How could obama argue with it? It’s what he did. It’s completely fair to do the same. And before any of you lefties wail about it not stopping Alito, just save it. The intent was to stop the nomination. Obama and Kerry didn’t have the support they wanted.

Tough.

The GOP could and should. Senator obama’s blueprint is there. It’s all the justification the GOP needs. But take heart, lefties. With the possibility looming overhead like a vulture over a wounded rabbit, obama has decided he regrets doing what he did and wants others to learn from his action:

“As the president alluded to yesterday, he regrets the vote that he made, because, frankly, I mean, as we’ve discussed, Democrats should have been in a position where they were making a public case. That’s what Democrats should have done. And they shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process. And frankly, looking back on it, the president thinks he should have just followed his own advice.”

But as it says in the Bible, “As ye filibuster, so shall ye reap.”

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The complete irreverence of this man is that he in not going to attend Antonin Scalia’s funeral, but he and the wife will pay their respects on Friday.
What a sack of sh** this pres is. The saddest injustice to this nation is that he can be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery-The garden of stones.
He has insulted the soldiers of this country, his Marine Guards, and this Nation.

Obama acts like a child. Attending a funeral for a noted civil servant shows respect for the years of service as well as the office. By not attending, Obama disrespects his office as he pouts in the oval office.

Funeral for Scalia Will Be Held Saturday:

“President Obama, accompanied by the first lady, Michelle Obama, will pay his respects to Justice Scalia at the court on Friday, but not attend Saturday’s funeral, according to Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his wife, Jill Biden, will attend in his stead.”

So, the President and his wife are apparently attending the private ceremony conducted at 9:30 Friday morning in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, where Judge Scalia will be lying in state. That’s the memorial service that customarily includes the Supreme Court justices themselves, along with their closest associates.

You people are very quick to attack the President at any and every opportunity, even if the angle you’re working is total bullshit. Most often that’s exactly what it is, as in this rather pathetic example.

That Obama won’t attend the funeral itself isn’t at all unusual. Only three of the past seven Supreme Court justice funerals were attended by the sitting President.

Attending the funeral is a public service. The President is a public person. Protocol demands his presence. Anything less is disrespect for the office of president and the justice. Trolls can spin it any way they want. The presidential image is crafted by public appearances, not private ones.

@Randy:Public image—-Could you imagine a President Trump?

It truly amazes me the conversations we Americans have and pretend it is substantive dialog. Like so other many things in our national discourse, obstructing Supreme Court nominees is nothing new. Whoever is in the executive will chide the other side about the constitutional responsibility.

Ironically, Obama is correct on the facts: the executive and legislature have a job to do and should be obligated to perform. Democrats are supremely disingenuous to suggest the obstructionism is only a Republican malady—the OP demonstrated this.

My desire is that we abandon this two party fixation and instead demand that our government work. We are sadly accepting dysfunction as the norm.

Don’t consume the Pablum.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

How could anyone argue with that? How could obama argue with it? It’s what he did. It’s completely fair to do the same.

Only in the real world where hypocrisy is not a ruling factor.

@Rich Wheeler:

@Randy:Public image—-Could you imagine a President Trump?

You better START imagining it.

I’m sure Obama is totally consumed with demanding issues of State this weekend, preventing him from attending the funeral. We will know exactly WHAT kept him from fulfilling his desire, I’m sure, to attend Monday.

@Rich Wheeler: Could you imagine a president Hilldabeast??

@Greg: Greg you have never stopped attacking and blaming President Bush and your a liar when you accuse him. Still awaiting proof on your lies!!

@Bill: Trump’s negatives are understandably at 65%–Can’t even get 40% of Repubs.. Loses to both HRC and Sanders nationally.
Kasich beats HRC by 9 points

Kasich has lied to the people of ohio for 7 years. personality of flatulence and a borderline personality disorder.
may want to inquire on his sexual preference.

@mos 8542: His wife is OUTSTANDING. They love him in Ohio. Repubs. best bet in a G.E.

The left can shove their false sanctimony up their collectivist backsides.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

The GOP will be dead if they allow Obama another leftists hack on SCOTUS.

@Pete:

Yeah, we know that Republicans are never falsely sanctimonious.

BTW, the GOP has one foot in the grave now.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Tony Plank: Read your blog—you nailed it–if only. We’ll see if and when this thin skinned bloviator gets punctured by sane Repubs. or the full electorate. I believe it will happen.

@Richard Wheeler:

Thank you sir! I think I’m going to have to copyright Billionaire Bloviator©…I’m proud of that one. 😉

Yeah…I think Trump goes down at some point. The only question is whether he takes the whole GOP with him.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Randy, #4:

Attending the funeral is a public service. The President is a public person. Protocol demands his presence. Anything less is disrespect for the office of president and the justice. Trolls can spin it any way they want. The presidential image is crafted by public appearances, not private ones.

Is this a new one-time rule of protocol the right has invented especially for this occasion? As was mentioned in post #3, only three of the past seven Supreme Court justice funerals were attended by the sitting President. It’s the usual thing for a president not to attend. That’s been the case more often than not.

If he were to go, rather than privately paying his respects Friday morning, people would be bitching about something else instead. Maybe Obama would forget to wear his flag pin, or Michelle would appear insufficiently attentive at some moment during an hour-long funeral mass. There would be something. There always is. Obama’s critics spin trivialities so often, it’s amazing that they don’t fall over on their heads.

Obama’s behavior is why he is not respected. “We won, you lost” was the start Protocol is important if you want to earn the respect of the opposition.

@Randy: Which is what the Republican response should be when they vote down his no doubt Constitutionally hating left wing nominees. Let him eat his own words and wallow in his own hypocrisy when whines about it.

@Richard Wheeler: Trump seems to defy all pollsters, pundits and analysts. Fact is, we don’t know.

Wasn’t that nominee confirmed ? Unsure that is a good example of obstruction

@John, #23:

A good point. Samuel Alito was confirmed. A filibuster was proposed and the possibility was discussed, but no filibuster was actually undertaken.

Another big difference is that the possibility was discussed in the context of Democratic objections to a specific nominee. It wasn’t being suggested that anyone the President nominated should be blocked.

John and Greg, It is time for your medication.

@Randy, #25:

Look it up for yourself or read the story here, as it was reported in the news on February 4, 2006. The proposed filibuster didn’t actually happen. There were enough democrats to have stopped the confirmation with a filibuster had they all been so inclined, but they were not, and they didn’t do it. A filibuster was ruled out on January 30, 2006 with the passage of a motion for cloture. Nineteen Democratic Senators voted for cloture along with all Republican Senators. That 2/3 bipartisan vote virtually assured Alito’s confirmation because, the likely confirmation vote count was already known. He was in fact confirmed on the following day.

Then-Senator Obama argued in favor of a filibuster before the cloture vote, but a filibuster never happened. It was only discussed as a possibility.

@DrJohn: The trolls can not discern the difference because it doesn’t fit their vision.

@Greg: You seem to miss the fact that Obama, Schumer and other liberals have established a precedent. It is, however, a precedent the left feels belongs only to them; if someone else wants to use it, it is wrong, bad, evil, racist and obstructionist.

Obama does not seem to be aware of what a competent individual consists of. He should not be trusted with placing anyone in any position of power.

Obama nominates–Senate votes up or down. What’s so difficult to understand?
My guess is Obama will nominate a well qualified moderate justice—Senate will hopefully give him (it won’t be another woman) a fair hearing.

@Richard Wheeler:

There won’t be anything fair about it as long as they think they can gain political advantage in a big election year. Its a sad state of affairs inside the beltway.

https://tonyplank.wordpress.com/

@Greg: And to you my steaming pile of crap, you attack Bush and his Presidency at every opportunity you believe is appropriate. Yet when you are accused of being full of shit and asked to prove your accusation you fail!!

@Common Sense, #33:

Did somebody mention Bush? Oh, yeah… As usual, you did. Bush is your fixation, not mine.

Do you know who reacts with insults when confronted with factual information that they don’t like? Children. Also, a significant number of right-wing adults. Children are at a decided advantage, because most of them eventually grow out of it.

@Richard Wheeler, #31:

My guess is Obama will nominate a well qualified moderate justice—Senate will hopefully give him (it won’t be another woman) a fair hearing.

I’m making the same guess. I don’t see how it would make sense for him to do anything else.

@Greg: To answer question you just need to look in the mirror because there would be your answer!! I do bring Bush up often because you continue to accuse him and fail to provide the proof to your accusations. I am still waiting but know you will NOT provide it!!

@Greg: My guess is that Obola is so far left of left he doesn’t have a clue what a moderate judge would look like.

@Richard Wheeler:

Senate votes up or down. What’s so difficult to understand?

The Constitution does not require a vote for every appointee. As the Democrats have in the past recognized, the Senate can choose not to even bring an appointment it to a vote, or even reject an appointee in committee. That is a part of their advise and consent powers. “What’s so difficult to understand?”

@Ditto: It will appear extremely partisan if The Senate does not even consider a moderate Republican nominee.

@Richard Wheeler:

Nonsense. How would it be “extremely partisan” for Republicans to not even consider a Republican appointee? If anything, it would signify that they are equally agreed not to consider any of Obama’s Lame Duck appointees (regardless of their party affiliation.) It shows that they are sticking by the Biden plan, which is not to consider a replacement until a fresh new president takes office who would be representing the current voter’s will.

@Ditto: What is your “lame duck” definition–last 3 months– one year– four year–strictly arbitrary?

Just goes to show you folks. Feed a troll, expect stupid, irrelevant questions.

@Ditto: Dear Repub. reactionary–not irrelevant at all–how bout your answer—how much time does BHO need remaining as POTUS for you to deem it O.K. to nominate? ANY ONE ELSE have an opinion?–

@Richard Wheeler:

As neither of us are members of the Senate, are not on the Judicial committee and will not personally be voting, our opinions on the definition of “lame duck” are completely irreverent to the process. What is relevant are past stated opinions by Biden, Shumer, and yes Obama on “lame duck” presidential appointments. (Hint, they spoke out against when it was Bush in office.)

Tell us Richard: Do your opinions on what time period constitutes “lame duck” vary depending on the party of the “last term” office holder, in the same way that it does with your party’s leadership?

@Dittoimo:”Lame Duck” should not be an excuse to not do their job.
Btw our opinions may be irreverent but I think not irrelevant lol.

@Richard Wheeler:

Don’t like that answer? Tough crap, get over it. That was nearly same answer Obama, Shumer and Biden gave when Bush was president. That’s why Democrats really should think about how their decisions can come back to bite them. They are doing their job. The are saying telling Obama ‘no, we will not consider your appointment during a presidential election year. We will wait until the current views of the public decide on a new president.’

US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The Constitution gives the power of Advise and Consent toe the Senate. Their decision not to consent to accepting a “lame duck” appointment is also an exercise of this power, which was recognized as a valid one by some Democrats including Obama when their party held the Senate and Bush was president. The Constitution does not say that there Must be an up-or-down vote on all appointments. They are doing their job, which means sometimes the answer is “no” and not to give their consent.

Personally, I think that the time period describing what is a “lame duck” needs be the same, regardless of the party affiliation of the office holder in question.

Lame Duck

An elected official, who is to be followed by another, during the period of time between the election and the date that the successor will fill the post.

As the primary elections started prior to Scalia’s death, it is clear that Obama is indeed a “lame duck”. Democrats who don’t like the Republicans following the Democrat’s own example are hypocrites. Is that how you wish to be viewed?

@Ditto: Didn’t know you were in lock step with previous Dem. opinions
You being a Trumpist–makes sense–he is now, and always has been a Dem. I’ve been following his circus act for over 30 years–even he thought he’d be in Palm Beach by now..
I’m voting Repub.–Rubio and or Kasich—you can have the Dem.

@Richard Wheeler:

Piss-off troll.

@Ditto: You sound just like your hero The Donald–you’re both classless.

@Richard Wheeler:

When a person start’s playing typical trollish tactics in a discussion such as you have above – ignoring direct questions, playing ‘word cop’, changing the subject and then begins attempting to present insults at someone they are debating with, – it becomes clear that they have lost the argument. When the trolling starts, (be it Rich, Greg or the other resident trolls,) there is nothing further to be gained by continuing the discussion.