Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Who Should Nominate the Next Supreme Court Justice?

Who Should Nominate the Next Supreme Court Justice?

Obama circa 2005 and 2009 is at odds with Obama today

Justice Scalia’s untimely passing has the entire political arena stressed. Senate Republicans refuse to confirm another justice until the next president is elected, but President Obama insists he will move forward with a nominee.

NBC News has the breakdown:

While the president said Saturday was “a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy,” he did announce his intention to nominate a successor.

The Republican Senate majority leader and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for the decision to be delayed and left to the next president.

Obama rebuffed the suggestion, saying “these are responsibilities that I take seriously as should everyone” that are “bigger than any one party.”

“They are about our democracy, and they are about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life in making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our Founders envisioned,” Obama said.

He made clear there is “plenty of time” left in his term to nominate the next justice and for the Senate to hold hearings and confirm the pick.

Aside from pointing out the obvious that we are not in fact, a democracy, we’d be remiss should we fail to mention that President Obama is the first president in American history to have voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee while serving in the Senate. President Obama has changed his tune since he’s been in the White House.

In 2005, when Democrats were the Senate’s minority party, then Senator Obama defended the filibuster.

Fast forward to 2009 when Obama nominated Justice Sotomayor, and the President hoped, “that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past.”

In 2009, ABC News reported:

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.”

He added that “there is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that’s to win elections.”

2009 Obama was right. Republicans won majorities in the Senate and the House in 2014. If the Senate decides to filibuster Obama’s nominee, then that will be because Republicans won the election.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

No filibuster. McConnel just does not schedule a vote.

I can imagine Obama trying a recess appointment, but I cannot see anyone who would take it. They would have to uproot their lives for a year, give up a judgeship, a teaching position or private practice. After the year, I’m sure the new President would nominate someone else. Even if the new President was a Democrat. It would possibly hinder their being appointed later too.

There probably are a few, but they would be hard to find.

    Milhouse in reply to HandyGandy. | February 16, 2016 at 3:29 am

    There’s no reason not to schedule a vote, in due course. Hold hearings, show the public how unsuitable the candidate is, and then vote them down. Repeat with the second candidate. There probably won’t be time for a third. Don’t rush anything, but don’t be seen to drag it out. The only reason to avoid a vote is if 0bama nominates someone half-way reasonable, and it looks like Snowe, etc. might vote for her.

“Obama circa 2005 and 2009 is at odds with Obama today”

No, no. THAT is simply unpossible…

Why Pres. ScamWOW is a pillar of consistent principle.

OK. I kid…

Obama, upon being informed of Justice Scalia’s passing immediately offered his condolences..
“Fore!”

I believe in 1960 the Democratic Senate passwed a resolution that the president should not appoint someone to the SCOTUS in an election year.

I’d like to nominate a Presidential impeachment panel.

The only reason Obama is still in office? Because Black.
White Obama would have been impeached long ago.

His pick is not what the country needs and delaying his nominee until he is out is within the law.

A leading Supreme Court analyst thinks Attorney General Loretta Lynch is the “most likely candidate” to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Tom Goldstein, who runs the influential SCOTUSblog, had earlier predicted Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford would make the top of President Obama’s shortlist. But in a revised blog post, Goldstein said he now believes Lynch is the leading contender.

Lynch is a “very serious possibility,” Goldstein wrote. “The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order.”
————-
She hasn’t ever been a judge as far as I know so what qualities other than being a liberal blow hard who is protecting hitlery does she have other than being black?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to 4fun. | February 15, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    A nominee for SCOTUS doesn’t have to be a judge. The nominee doesn’t even have to be a lawyer. The nominee can be a skid row bum, for that matter. It could be Abdul from obastard’s favorite discount cigarette store.

    Observer in reply to 4fun. | February 16, 2016 at 6:28 am

    Lynch testified during her AG confirmation hearings that she believes illegal aliens have a “right” to jobs in the U.S.

    Lynch also testified that she has no problem with Obama issuing executive-order amnesties to millions of illegal aliens, even after Obama himself admitted publicly and repeatedly that he does not have the constitutional authority to issue such amnesties.

    IOW, Lynch has already conclusively demonstrated that she is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Obama can nominate whoever he wants. The Senate is under no obligation to allow an unfit nominee out of the Judiciary Committee. Both obligations, fulfilled.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | February 15, 2016 at 5:48 pm

Chuck Schumer said in this video he would do everything in his power to not confirm another GWB nominee to SCOTUS. The video was uploaded in July, 2007 a full 18 months before GWB’s presidency ended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8

Democrats know that given the kind of nominee Obama is likely to nominate, the Senate will either drag it out and not vote or vote the person down.

All that’s going on now is political theatrics to rile up the base. I read somewhere Democrats were fundraising off Scalia’s death within a couple of hours of his death being publicly confirmed.

Sewer politics.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | February 15, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    It’s not just sewer politics. About half our society are sewer people, thanks to the entertainment industry, the media, and the public education “malpractice” – all leftist controlled industries that discourage decorum, manners, critical thinking, independence and patriotism.

Perhaps while everyone is so anxious to do their Constitutional duty they can go back in time to last August and submit the Iran treaty to the Senate as the Constitution requires.

    There is something to be said for doing unto others what they do to you, especially when ‘the others’ are conniving liberals.

    Milhouse in reply to twri719. | February 16, 2016 at 3:25 am

    The constitution requires no such thing. The only reason any president ever sends a proposed treaty to the senate is in the hope of getting the senate’s consent; if it has no chance of getting that, then there’s no point in submitting it.

Roll-Over Party leadership doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude required to stand firm on this issue. They will roll-over to the demands of the LibDem Obamedia. There will be a daily drum beat from the LibDem’s and their media lapdogs until the ROP folds.

The Nothing option. The Current Executive nominates X, Y or Z; do nothing (Senate). A Republican wins the White House; do nothing (President). Ruth Bader Ginsburg meets a/the/any Maker; do nothing (Republican President). End of story.

Or

The Current Executive nominates X, Y or Z; do nothing (Senate). A Republican wins the White House; nominate the best candidate.

Any other outcome will be a disaster.

It is really very simple. Obama will not nominate a justice who is faithful to the constitution. So we do not have any need to justify ignoring his nominee. The Senate has a duty to defend the constitution against a rogue president.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend