Do you really want Donald Trump selecting him or her, Republicans?
No.
[Friday-morning update]
The Reid Standard:
The #ReidStandard. #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/5Po6qM0wfi
— Leader McConnell (@SenateMajLdr) February 19, 2016
They’ve made their bed.
[Bumped]
No, I don’t want Trump picking supreme court justices (Kelo vs. New London, the eminent domain case, being my biggest reason). However, I’d much prefer him do it than have Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio do it.
My preference would be to have someone with an appropriate background do it. For example, a lawyer who has argued cases before the supreme court, and was solicitor general of Texas (Cruz).
He’d try to nominate Roy Cohn.
No.
I think the Republicans played this slightly wrong in that they should not have suggested no appointment by Obama be made.
They should simply shrug and vote: Unacceptable.
Don’t worry, Gregg; I think I can see how this will play out.
The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman will “wait and see” regarding who Obama nominates as to whether or not to hold hearings. He’ll then, after due consideration, bring it up for a vote. A few, just enough, Republicans will be absent to get it through. This will, of course, occur after the filing deadline for primary challenges in the senate races.
McConnel will defer to the Senate Judiciary Chair and schedule a floor vote, while promising it’ll go nowhere.
Again, a few republicans, just enough, will be absent that day, or abstain, to allow cloture, and then approval. Perhaps one or two may even vote for it, if they aren’t facing primary challenges.
In other words, just like the Omnibus and all the other GOPe kabuki theater votes.
I don’t think so. The Omnibus passes because it has things that Senators from both parties really want. What incentive does a GOP senator have to vote for an Obama SCOTUS nominee, especially one that will flip the balance of the court on many issues? It seems like a sure-fire way to draw a primary challenge.
I will be very surprised if any SCOTUS nominee gets a floor vote before the next president is sworn in, and I will be semi-surprised if any SCOTUS nominee is confirmed before the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party (which might be the case in 2017, but might not be until years later).
Jim, I find myself hoping you’re right regarding the senate vote.
However, as for what’s in it for Republicans, some of them may not have the spine for standing firm, and would prefer the easier way out (especially when we bear in mind that each senate race is different). They also, with good reason, trust the short memory of voters, so as long as it’s past the filing date for primary challenges THIS year, they’d escape most of the damage.
Also, they don’t need to vote for this, they can simply not vote against it. (for example, Rubio said he opposed the omnibus, they skipped the actual vote). That won’t work for cloture (which requires 6/10 of the full senate, not just those present) but it’d work on the confirmation vote itself. Remember, some of these R senators are from blue states, so may be looking to put some daylight between themselves and a move unpopular with Democrats.
What’s making me such a pessimist? All the times the GOP establishment has acted in direct contravention of its campaign promises.
I very much hope I’m wrong.
The GOP will fold because: 1) that’s what they do; and 2) when SCOTUS is 5-4 or 6-3 against them (thanks, Kennedy) it will give them someone else to blame for not actually doing what the voters sent them to DC to do, which they never intended to do anyway. The GOP *wants* to lose on this.
Why would the GOP want to lose? Are there any lobbyists or special interests who would really want them to approve an Obama pick? I can think of significant interests (e.g. the NRA and gun manufacturers) who would lobby strongly against confirming an Obama nominee. What would push Mitch McConnell the other way?
What would push Mitch McConnell the other way?
A severe lack of spine and character. He cares more about “The Senate” as a body and his role in the leadership than anything else. While investors like to say that “past performance is no predictor of future results”, that doesn’t apply to slimy politicians like McConnell. Arizona CJ’s scenario is a very real possibility.
They let the mask slip. Their attempts to invent a principle or precedent for leaving a seat open until the next election have been embarrassing. They should have just said something like: “We mourn the loss of Justice Scalia, who knew that our freedoms could only be protected by judges who respect the original text and meaning of the Constitution. We look forward to offering our advice and consent to the nomination of a replacement justice who will carry on Justice Scalia’s legacy.”
But instead of simply asserting their legitimate Constitutional role, they looked like they were denying Obama’s.
The question going forward is whether any justices will ever again be confirmed while the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties. Doing so was routine until now, but there’s nothing to force the Senate to do so, and there’s an obvious political advantage to waiting until ones own party is doing the nominating. Having different parties in control of the executive and Senate is a common state of affairs, and long SCOTUS vacancies may become routine.
Jim, question for you; would you still feel the same way if no democrat SC nominee had been voted down within the lifetime of anyone alive today, while many Republican ones had been?
I’m not sure I understand your question, either the feeling you’re referring to or the hypothetical. I don’t recall any Dem SCOTUS nominees being voted down in my lifetime (did Fortas get a vote?), while Bork is the only GOP pick to fail to get confirmation on the Senate floor. Could you clarify?
Well, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito came close to being rejected. Nixon had Haynesworth and Carswell rejected. And then there are the Appeals Court nominees – Estrada, etc.
The Right is more sinned against than sinning. And they’re more willing to play hardball now as a result.
Whether they did or not, they spoke more recently when they elected a Republican Senate to stop him.
“But instead of simply asserting their legitimate Constitutional role, they looked like they were denying Obama’s.But instead of simply asserting their legitimate Constitutional role, they looked like they were denying Obama’s.”
Not really. Obama has every right to nominate someone and the GOP has every right not to confirm his nominee. We saw this same argument last time, that the GOP is required to confirm whoever Obama nominates.
It was funny to watch Obama’s press conference today. When asked if he would nominate a moderate, who appeals to both parties, he started laughing. Obama doesn’t favor comity or compromise. He favors creating the most chaos and discord.
He went off on the GOP on how it was their fault the process is the way it is. Then was asked about his prior filibuster of Bush’s nominee and said something like, “We can’t hold any one party responsible for how the nomination process became what it is. The vote of any one senator isn’t important and they may have voted no, knowing that the nomination would go through anyway.”
Obama is a dishonest Machiavellian hack.
Democrat’s have set the precedent for denying confirmation of judges, creating a process full of rancor, the use of the filibuster, and using every conceivable tactic to slow walk process. I notice Democrats have dropped the claim a President must nominate a judge that embodied the views of the judge being replaced. I guess that, like all the other rules and ethical concerns are just for GOP Presidents.
IMO, after the way Democrats celebrated the death of Scalia and how they have acted in general over the last 7 years, the GOP should use every parliamentarian tactic to prevent Obama from getting a nomination confirmed. After the way Democrats acted, they really need to be told to f off.
Not really.
A number of GOP leaders, including McConnell, argued that the next president should fill the vacancy because the “American people should have a voice.” Such statements are a sly way to deny that the American people spoke when they elected Obama.
And spoke again, after that, when they gave the Republicans the Senate. It was another restraining order, particularly after the stolen election of 2012.
I’m a big believer that the law and the legal processes should be consistent. When I read things like this, I believe we should be consistent. Chuck-U Schumer in 2007 declared that Bush should not have any more SC nominations, then that seems a reasonable standard today. If Obama voted to filibuster nomination hearings when he was in the Senate, what’s wrong with doing the same thing to his nominees? Frankly, I know of no better example of Democrat hypocrisy than this issue. I want the Senate to do the same thing to them that they did to us.
the stolen election of 2012
Which, in turn, is your way to deny that the American people spoke when they elected Obama.
Nothing at all sly about it.
Your response betrays and appalling lack of knowledge about how the Federal government was designed, and how it’s supposed to work.
The 3 branches were DESIGNED to oppose each other.
They were not designed to rubber stamp each other.
Did you think that this was a big concern in 2007, when Schumer said that none of Bush’s nominees should be confirmed over the next 18 months, or is a recent revelation?
The Senate has every right and even a duty to reject candidates it finds unworthy. This goes for both parties. Interestingly, and I’ve never quite understood why, the GOP has, for many years, showed more reluctance to absolutely refuse to confirm an appointment. Not that they haven’t done that, but it’s not at all symmetrical.
Really, the Senate should reject anyone they think isn’t fit for the Court. To do so for purely partisan reasons is against tradition (though not law), but there is certainly as much obligation on a president as on the Senate to be reasonable. The president doesn’t have superior powers to the Senate–each branch serves as a check on the other and has the right to use its power as it sees fit.
Given that Obama does not have a good track record for appointing actual moderates (that is, generally recognized as such and not just labeled moderates), the onus is really on him, especially given his lame duck status and the growing GOP majorities, to not nominate an ideologue or a political hack.
To do so for purely partisan reasons is against tradition (though not law)
It may be against the tradition of Republicans but the Democrats have done it more than once.
Yes, it’s interesting to wonder what would have happened if, say, Ginsberg had died or retired in 2008. I think there’s at least a 50-50 chance that Reid would have postponed a vote until 2009. If the vacancy was in 2007 it would have been harder to justify keeping a seat vacant for so long, so I’m guessing they would have repeatedly filibustered or voted down whoever Bush sent over. Which is pretty much what I expect to happen now.
And did the entire Democratic establishment jump on board with Schumer’s idea? OR did the democrats ignore him and let President Bush put someone forward?
I can tell you why they said that. The base no longer trusts them and the leadership has finally worked out that they might be in real trouble. If they had not espoused an absolutist position, the base would interpret that as “we’re going to eventually confirm whomever the president nominates.” It does seem to me that the base of the Republican party is even more frustrated with their leadership than the base of the Democratic party is with theirs.
Neither party’s coronation is going anywhere as smoothly as was expected, but the fact that Gov Bush is fairing much worse in his primary than Sec Clinton is in hers is one indicator of the differing levels of distrust each party’s base has towards the leadership.
Posted from my phone due to my work PC being blocked from posting by the spam filter because it is behind a proxy, so please excuse any typos.
With respect, I believe that you are mistaken. The GOP has made the mistake of trying to appease the Left in the past, sometimes trying to curry favor with undecided voters, and has almost always ended up on the wrong side of the equation as a result. The Left already has its narratives in place, i.e. the GOP are extremist, racist, and obstructionist, and even complete surrender won’t alter that narrative. Hence it is utterly pointless to try to reason with them or establish any sort of ‘cold peace’ with them until they are forced to acknowledge that it is in their interest to do so.
Lets try the reverse…appeal to the base of the GOP and get them to show up at the polls. Stop trying to appease the unappeasable, who aren’t worthy of the consideration in the first place. Make it clear that Obama has earned no respect, and no consideration, and that the GOP will treat him accordingly. Obama is too arrogant and stupid to learn (and say this openly, by the way…his thin skin will betray him…) but perhaps there are Democrats who will get the message. In the meantime, remind the base that this is the reason that they voted for the GOP in the first place.
“Stop trying to appease the unappeasable, who aren’t worthy of the consideration in the first place.”
Exactly right! Nothing will stop the Democrats from employing the strategy that non-Democrats are evil unhuman monsters that want to enslave everyone. Nothing the GOP does or doesn’t do will change this.
“Make it clear that Obama has earned no respect, and no consideration, and that the GOP will treat him accordingly. ”
Yup. I wish McConnell had said something like, “We will give Obama and his nomination the same level of respect and consideration that he has given the loyal opposition. We will treat him exactly as he has treat us.”
Exactly. Obama should select an new justice candidate, it’s his right/duty to do so. And then the Senate should “Bork” any candidate that isn’t a near clone of Scalia, which any Obama selectee is sure not to be.
I just don’t trust the current crop of GOP Senators to do it.
I don’t think Trump would do any worse than Jeb. Rubio’s judgement is questionable but he has some good tutors working for him. Cruz would probably do the best job. But if any of them said they would nominate Glenn Reynolds…
Who Obama nominates will say a lot about whether or not he thinks the Democrats will win. Perhaps he will start off knowing his nominee will get turned down. He might have time to cycle a number of people through. But if he doesn’t want a successor to fill the spot due to ego or if he thinks the GOP will win, he will have to pick someone the GOP will tolerate. That lowers the chance he picks a radical or poor liar.
However, if he thinks the Democrats will win or it will be close, he could keep pushing radical judges in the hopes that it will help motivate Democrats to turn out on election day and that Hillary or Sanders will will have a Democrat Senate to confirm his choice.
I suspect that Obama’s first choice will be a throwaway purely for political theatre. There will be immense pressure on the GOP to accept each person he sends up and the pressure will grow after his first nominee is rejected. We can expect any nomination to be thoroughly dishonest during hearings, same as the rest of his administration. They will claim the nominee to be sooooo moderate but in reality they wont be.
Just my speculation but this is the craziest election in my lifetime and Obama is a skilled politician with no ethics and the entire media industry at his back. It would be entertaining if the stakes weren’t so high.
I absolutely expect a nominee selected purely on the basis of motivating voters. If the GOP rejects that nominee firmly enough, Obama might nominate someone less provocative, though that’s just a guess. Figure he wants to get an appointment in before he leaves office.
This would never happen today, but one interesting option would be a true compromise–a libertarian justice. Not just a strict constitutionalist, which the Democrats don’t like, but someone that’s got reasonable credibility as a social libertarian.
The obvious choice would be Janice Rogers Brown, though the Democrats already fought to keep her off the bench (despite her being the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers, which gives her credibility in the all-important identity politics realm). But there are others.
I personally think Trump would be ideal to pick the next Supreme Court. Judging by his knowledge of the Constitution, and by the lack of limitations on his power established by the current Fuhrer, I would expect him to simply replace all nine Justices. And what would you say in response to that, Jim? I mean, Trump would have a pen and a phone, right? And when the government comes after you, as I assure you it will, who will protect you? I don’t know, and I don’t care. You asked for this.
In 2005, I defended the right of Democrats to interfere in judicial nominations. I knew we’d need it someday.
Trump, Kasich and Jeb would all disappoint me on their picks for the next Supreme Court Justice. Especially Kasich and Jeb – they would pick someone wishy washy just to get along with the Democrats.
Rubio? I’d say 60-40 he’d disappoint me.
Cruz? I have the most confidence in Cruz to pick as close to a Scalia as we could find.
Andrew McCarthy has a really good article on this over at National Review:
“We may be pro-life, but (by and large) we are not looking for a justice to invent a constitutional prohibition on abortion; we are looking for a justice who says the Constitution does not speak to abortion — it leaves the issue to be resolved by the people, through their representatives. We are looking for justices who respect the Constitution as a framework that promotes popular self-determination with certain well-known minority-rights exceptions, and who do not see litigation as an opportunity to impose a political agenda. Yes, we are looking to be protected from being dictated to by the Left under the guise of a “living Constitution”; but we are not asking to dictate our competing policy preferences — just to have a shot at persuading our fellow citizens of their merit through the democratic process.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431452/antonin-scalia-replacement-senate“
I wonder if republicans are finally getting a spine in this case because they realize the press has less control over them today than they did in the past. Now that the mainstream media has been knocked down a few pegs, they don’t feel as threatened.
Also, as Jim pointed out, republicans like omninbus bills because it hides pork. There is no way to hide this.
Democrats think that the denial of a justice will cause a mass rally for them during the elections. For the active democrats this will be true; but the vast majority of democrats won’t care because they only vote with their bellies for free stuff.
The Democrats and the media won’t be able to play this the way they do fiscal cliffs and budgets — there’s no threat of “The evil Republicans shut down the government!” (when it’s the Democrats who always actually do so). Few voters care how many justices there are on the Supreme Court — they sense no impact on their lives from it.
It’s potential electioneering fodder for partisans and single-issue voters, but most people won’t care that much. The Senate and president have differing but co-equal powers to place a new justice on the bench.
And there’s no question of government shutting down and babies being placed in labor camps–the SCOTUS will continue to operate and has mechanisms for dealing with or deferring ties. These happen even with a full bench, as justices sometimes have to recuse themselves or are out ill for an extended period.
I hope there’s a better choice (although there seldom is in a democracy); but better Trump than the Alinskyite Witch or the Crazy Socialist Grandpa or the Red Diaper Baby currently occupying the White House.
Another case of Democrat Situational ethics:
“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. ”
Awwwww too bad. Think you’ll get a pass on that now?
Article 2 – The Executive Branch
Section 2 – Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
“He shall have Power … and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court …”
So, can the Senate withhold consent for the sitting president to appoint any new judges, and advise him not to bother trying?
It’s not unconstitutional.
Not quite:
The Congress can choose to not consent to a Presidential nomination.
But they cannot consent to prevent the President from making a nomination.
As to whether or not to “advise” the President to not make a nomination…they can – there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they cannot. But the President does not need to listen to the advice. Also, it’s probably a bad political move.
The Constitution says “…..he shall nominate,..”which means the President MUST make a nomination.
That is…if one interprets the Constitution as the legal document it is…and a binding legal document at that since it was ratified by the States.
Well, there are lots of ways for the two parties to mess up the government. And to ignore the ways and customs that existed for quite some time, that made things function. Obviously, everyone gets the blame – one party for starting it, the other party for making it universal, and then they take turns the other way.
The net result is that we aren’t going to have a country if this goes on much longer. Albanians and Serbians. You can’t make one country out of two groups that hate and mistrust one another. We aren’t there yet, but it’s something you can see.
Maybe Democrats won’t compromise until Republicans start treating Democrats like Democrats treat Republicans. Being nice and civil shouldn’t be a one way street. Compromise doesn’t mean that the outcome always favor the Democrats, like when “cutting spending” is still an increase in spending.
I think it time for the GOP to stand up for itself and fight back against Democrats.
That twitter actually came from McConnell?
Wow….did he actually start to grow a pair?
They should do the same with Chucky Schumer’s remarks on the topic.
As well as Pelosi’s:
October 2005:
“The Supreme Court must not be used as a tool by extremists to fulfill an ideological agenda and to undermine our individual rights. Under our Constitution, the Senate has an independent role in deciding whether to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court. “
Gregg, you’re in luck. There is a tweet on Schumer. #SchumerStandard
Rand, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head about this being different than a budget battle. If McConnell sticks to his guns it’s because he expects more blowback from the base than from Americans in general.
Watched the Obamas pay their respects today. They were there about sixty seconds and even that small sacrifice of time was too much for Michelle to keep from rolling her eyes.
Pretty disgusting to see her rolling her eyes because she was impatient with her husband’s fake show of remorse taking more than a few seconds.
And Democrats want to lecture others about respect?