Obama: No excuse for GOP not to vote on a court nominee

[webfact]

Obama: No excuse for GOP not to vote on a court nominee
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. (AP) — President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that Republicans have no constitutional grounds to refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nominee, and he challenged his political foes in the Senate to rise above the "venom and rancor" that has paralyzed judicial nominations.

As Obama cast the dispute over filling the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia as a test of whether the Senate could function, there were early signs that Republican resistance could be eroding. Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley suggested he might be open to considering Obama's yet-to-be named nominee, an indication his party may be sensitive to Democrats' escalating charges of unchecked obstructionism.

"I intend to do my job between now and January 20 of 2017," Obama told reporters at a news conference. He said of the nation's senators: "I expect them to do their job as well."

Obama was in California for a meeting of Southeast Asian leaders gathered for two days of diplomacy. But his attention was divided at that conference.

Since Scalia's unexpected death at a Texas ranch on Saturday, White House lawyers and advisers have been scrambling to refine and vet a list of potential replacements, while also devising a strategy to push a candidate through the Republican-led Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he doesn't think Obama should be putting a candidate forward. The Kentucky senator, as well as several Republicans up for re-election this year, say Obama should leave the choice up to the next president. The November election, they argue, will give voters a chance to weigh in on the direction of the court.

Obama dismissed that notion, insisting he will put forward a replacement and believes the Senate will have "plenty of time" to give the nominee a fair hearing and a vote. Democrats say Obama has every right and a constitutional duty to fill vacancies on the court until he leaves office next January.

Obama conceded the dispute reflects years of escalating partisan hostilities over judicial nominations and that Democrats' hands are not bloodless. Years of bickering have left the public accustomed to a situation where "everything is blocked" — even when there's no ideological or substantive disagreement, he said.

"This would be a good moment for us to rise above it," he said.

The pace of judicial confirmation always slows in a presidential election year, as the party that does not control the White House holds out hope that its candidate will fill vacant judgeships rather than give lifetime tenure to the other party's choices. In the past, lawmakers have sometimes informally agreed to stop holding hearings on lower court nominations during campaign season.

Obama argued Tuesday that "the Supreme Court's different."

"There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done in off years. That's not in the constitutional text," he said. "I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole serious of propositions that aren't there. There's more than enough time for the Senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision."

McConnell has shown no signs of shifting his opposition, and several lawmakers facing heated elections have backed him up. But the party may still be searching for a strategy.

In an interview with home state reporters, Iowa Republican Grassley said he "would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decision."

The White House has been looking for cracks in the Republicans opposition as it deliberates on a nominee. If Republicans indicate they may hold hearings, Obama would have greater reason to name a "consensus candidate," a moderate nominee who would be at least somewhat difficult for Republicans to reject. If there's virtually no chance of Republicans bending, Obama might go another route -- picking a nominee who galvanizes support among the Democrats' liberal base and fires up interest groups in the election year.

Obama on Tuesday would not tip his hand — much.

"I'm going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagrees with my politics, would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court," he said.

Asked if that meant he was leaning toward a moderate, Obama said, bluntly, "No."

He would not comment on whether he would consider appointing a candidate during a congressional recess, a last-ditch maneuver likely to further inflame partisanship in Congress.

Obama's dilemma arises, in part, because of the unusual timing. Supreme Court vacancies in presidential years are rare, largely because the justices avoid retiring when prospects for confirming successors are uncertain.

If Senate Republicans hold fast to their vow not to confirm anyone Obama nominates, the Supreme Court will operate with eight justices not just for the rest of this court term, but for most of the next one as well. High court terms begin in October, and the 80 or so cases argued in the course of a term typically are decided by early summer.

The court would be unable to issue rulings on any issue in which the justices split 4-4.

Court officials said Scalia's body will lie in repose on Friday in the Supreme Court's Great Hall, after a private ceremony. The funeral mass Saturday will take place at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.

Scalia's courtroom chair on Tuesday was draped in black.
___

Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-17

[ezzra]

"I intend to do my job between now and January 20 of 2017,"

That's the thing Mr Obama, the people doesn't really care what you be doing in the months that left

of your failed presidency, you didn't do much in 7 years, why start now? you have used you veto

powers to go against the GOP all those years, why are you asking for their cooperation now?.....

[NeverSure]

"President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that Republicans have no constitutional grounds to refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nominee."

Maybe he's right, but they can sure vote "no".

[impulse]

If they don't like his nominee, they're gonna really hate HRC's.

[keemapoot]

I've yet to read an intelligent, strategic plan put forth by the Republicans regarding this issue. They really are looking like a rudderless ship run aground on this matter. Where are the conservative intellectual giants like William F. Buckley? George Will and the current lot of thinkers should rise to the occasion, but I'm not optimistic cause they'll get shot down by their own party.

[wwest5829]

"President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that Republicans have no constitutional grounds to refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nominee."

Maybe he's right, but they can sure vote "no".

Yep, up to the Consent of the Senate under the U.S. Constitution. I am quite at ease seeing the judgement of the already declared opposition. My sympathy goes to any nominee as it will possibly a rough ride. On the other hand, the Republicans may well decide, politically, that they will continue to be seen as optructionists going into the election. But, as they held a caucus to decide to oppose anything proposed by Obama after his first term election...why change now?

[chuckd]

It's nice to see Obama returning to the Constitution.

He has ignored it for so long, I was thinking perhaps there were no copies of it in this White House.

Looks like they dusted off one.

[NeverSure]

I've yet to read an intelligent, strategic plan put forth by the Republicans regarding this issue. They really are looking like a rudderless ship run aground on this matter. Where are the conservative intellectual giants like William F. Buckley? George Will and the current lot of thinkers should rise to the occasion, but I'm not optimistic cause they'll get shot down by their own party.

The Republicans aren't the ones to have a plan. If someone is to be nominated, that's Obama's job. Then he can see if he can get the consent of the Senate.

The Senate may be called "obstructionist", but if Obama nominates a far out activist judge he will be responsible for getting "obstructed".

The US has a two party system for a reason, and that's supposed to be for checks and balances. If Obama goes way out with a nomination he will get checked.

Cheers.

[Pinot]

Republicans are screwed. If they pass the nomination, they lose the majority on the court. All the bullshit like Citizen's United, restrictions on women's right to choose, voter ID garbage, etc, etc, go right out the window. Everything that this wingnut court allowed (embraced) will be chucked out under a majority of fair judges not bent on a right wing agenda.

If they don't confirm a nominee they look like hypocrites and bring the next President's choice up as a very important aspect of the election. More people will come out to vote, making the Republican's already distant chances far worse. The next democratic choice for Supreme Court will happen anyway but along with it will come a landslide election for the democrats.

Screwed either way. Even not appointing anyone and leaving it a 4-4 court for the next year favors the Dems.

A woman's right to choose is enough to turn an election with an overwhelming majority of Americans believing abortion should be legal. All the clowns are for forced births. Republicans will lose the election on this issue alone.

So pay now Republicans or pay later, you're going to pay. It will be that much more dear if you wait till November. Delay, delay, delay will be the cherry on top of the death of the Republican party. Som nom na.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Pinot

[Emster23]

Republicans say leave until after next election so "the people can have a say in this". May I point out that the people already had a say in this when they elected, then re-elected Obama? Obama isn't running again, so can't be accused of pandering to specific groups. Whoever gets in after next election couldn't be in that position. Republicans are being fully exposed regarding their willingness to impair or cripple one branch of government for their own political ends (in case anyone hasn't noticed that before).

Personally, I would love to see Obama nominate Colin Powell... moderate, has integrity and common sense (rare these days). How would Republicans rationalize turning that choice down? "But..... but..... Obama!"?

[Pinot]

I've yet to read an intelligent, strategic plan put forth by the Republicans regarding this issue. They really are looking like a rudderless ship run aground on this matter. Where are the conservative intellectual giants like William F. Buckley? George Will and the current lot of thinkers should rise to the occasion, but I'm not optimistic cause they'll get shot down by their own party.

The Republicans aren't the ones to have a plan. If someone is to be nominated, that's Obama's job. Then he can see if he can get the consent of the Senate.

The Senate may be called "obstructionist", but if Obama nominates a far out activist judge he will be responsible for getting "obstructed".

The US has a two party system for a reason, and that's supposed to be for checks and balances. If Obama goes way out with a nomination he will get checked.

Cheers.

You can do better than this.

Obama doesn't have to nominate a far out activist judge. No one thinks he will. He wouldn't do that. That's just right wing rhetoric and a Fox News talking point. It's silly.

There are two recently appointed judges approved 97-0 that could easily be nominated to the high court.

Far out activist judge was exactly what Anthony Scalia was by the way. No, Obama won't go there.

Checks and balances? Right wing rhetoric. They're going to try and delay delay delay because they're screwed

[ggt]

Republicans are screwed. If they pass the nomination, they lose the majority on the court. All the bullshit like Citizen's United, restrictions on women's right to choose, voter ID garbage, etc, etc, go right out the window. Everything that this wingnut court allowed (embraced) will be chucked out under a majority of fair judges not bent on a right wing agenda.

If they don't confirm a nominee they look like hypocrites and bring the next President's choice up as a very important aspect of the election. More people will come out to vote, making the Republican's already distant chances far worse. The next democratic choice for Supreme Court will happen anyway but along with it will come a landslide election for the democrats.

Screwed either way. Even not appointing anyone and leaving it a 4-4 court for the next year favors the Dems.

A woman's right to choose is enough to turn an election with an overwhelming majority of Americans believing abortion should be legal. All the clowns are for forced births. Republicans will lose the election on this issue alone.

So pay now Republicans or pay later, you're going to pay. It will be that much more dear if you wait till November. Delay, delay, delay will be the cherry on top of the death of the Republican party. Som nom na.

As usual your posts are so full of your personal liberal self...

"Senator" Obama...ironically, voted against Justice Roberts...and joined a filibuster against Justice Alito...both Bush nominees...

You once again prove yourself to be full of un-flushed toilet ingredients...

[Srikcir]

Regardless of the GOP resistance to ANY Obama nominee for the Supreme Court, the American people are entitled to a nominee being quickly offered for the sake of justice. And that is Obama's responsibility.

Now the USSC is likely to have 4-4 deadlocked decisions. This automatically defaults to sustain lower court decisions. In essence it removes an important appeal process that is part of the check and balance system necessary for a democratic society. It would be irresponsible to allow such a situation to exist until after the next President takes office on January 20, 2017 - almost a year from now.

While the GOP can rally against Obama for proceeding with a nominee to gain election PR, it risks being labled as an obstructionist to the protections afforded by the US Constitution. GOP needs to be careful towards the next nominee. The POTUS election is not just about appealing to the Republican voters, but also to Indepedent and cross-over Democrat voters. If it fails a pragmatic approach to the USSC appointment, it will fail in the POTUS election.

[NeverSure]

If they don't like his nominee, they're gonna really hate HRC's.

[chuckd]

Republicans say leave until after next election so "the people can have a say in this". May I point out that the people already had a say in this when they elected, then re-elected Obama? Obama isn't running again, so can't be accused of pandering to specific groups. Whoever gets in after next election couldn't be in that position. Republicans are being fully exposed regarding their willingness to impair or cripple one branch of government for their own political ends (in case anyone hasn't noticed that before).

Personally, I would love to see Obama nominate Colin Powell... moderate, has integrity and common sense (rare these days). How would Republicans rationalize turning that choice down? "But..... but..... Obama!"?

It is generally conceded that some in-depth knowledge of the Constitution is required to gain a seat on the Supreme Court.

While Secretary Powell was a long serving patriot, his education consists of a BS in geology and an MBA from George Washington University.

It would be a very easy turn down.

[Chicog]

It's nice to see Obama returning to the Constitution.

He has ignored it for so long, I was thinking perhaps there were no copies of it in this White House.

Looks like they dusted off one.

The only problem with your little fantasy is that it isn't true.

And you of all people know there are checks and balances.

Just another Fox News sound bite.

[TPI]

Republicans say leave until after next election so "the people can have a say in this". May I point out that the people already had a say in this when they elected, then re-elected Obama? Obama isn't running again, so can't be accused of pandering to specific groups. Whoever gets in after next election couldn't be in that position. Republicans are being fully exposed regarding their willingness to impair or cripple one branch of government for their own political ends (in case anyone hasn't noticed that before).

Personally, I would love to see Obama nominate Colin Powell... moderate, has integrity and common sense (rare these days). How would Republicans rationalize turning that choice down? "But..... but..... Obama!"?

But! Wasn't Colin shown to be a cheney flunky? It would be different if he has grown a pair, tho it would serve the GOP right to have to obstruct one of their own?? Som nom na!

[charmonman]

It's nice to see Obama returning to the Constitution.

He has ignored it for so long, I was thinking perhaps there were no copies of it in this White House.

Looks like they dusted off one.

Please indicate one case where Obama has ignored or violated the constitution. Just because some a$$h0les on Fox news say he has, doesn't make it true.

[Pimay1]

It's nice to see Obama returning to the Constitution.

He has ignored it for so long, I was thinking perhaps there were no copies of it in this White House.

Looks like they dusted off one.

Please indicate one case where Obama has ignored or violated the constitution. Just because some a$$h0les on Fox news say he has, doesn't make it true.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in order unilateral changes to immigration laws in the latest such ruling against executive overreach by the President.

https://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/11/fifth-circuit-rules-president-obama-violated-constitution-on-unilateral-immigration-changes/

[chuckd]

It's nice to see Obama returning to the Constitution.

He has ignored it for so long, I was thinking perhaps there were no copies of it in this White House.

Looks like they dusted off one.

Please indicate one case where Obama has ignored or violated the constitution. Just because some a$$h0les on Fox news say he has, doesn't make it true.

I haven't watched Fox News in about 8 years. You will have to watch those a$$h0les all by yourself.

You wanted one example?

How about Article !!, Section.3, which says in part...

" he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"

[elgordo38]

Anybody that thinks the Supreme court is an impartial body well think again. There are presently 4 lefties and 4 righties since the death of Scalia. The Republicans want another rightie and the Democrats another leftie to break the tie. Why do you think this is such a hot button issue.? I can never figure out why this cabal comes to a conclusion on a item and then comes back to revisit it a few years later and change their mind. I know we live in changing times but there is a smell of allegiance to this so called judicial body.

[Berkshire]

Anybody that thinks the Supreme court is an impartial body well think again. There are presently 4 lefties and 4 righties since the death of Scalia. The Republicans want another rightie and the Democrats another leftie to break the tie. Why do you think this is such a hot button issue.? I can never figure out why this cabal comes to a conclusion on a item and then comes back to revisit it a few years later and change their mind. I know we live in changing times but there is a smell of allegiance to this so called judicial body.

What's intriguing is even WITH Scalia, the Supreme Court still ruled in favor of gay marriage, Obamacare, abortion rights, etc.

So yes, I'd imagine with another liberal justice, the "conservative cause" will be toast. And not soon enough.

[expat_4_life]

It's pure political posturing ... it's totally up to the Senate, and the Dems have blocked many times in the past.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) has vowed to block any of lame-duck President Obama’s Supreme Court nominations.

The media have taken to acting as if this move is unprecedented, and that a senator has never publicly stated he would intentionally

block a presidential nomination. Not true. Not only have there been several lengthy Supreme Court vacancies, but there

are plenty of past instances when senators refused to confirm a president’s nominations.

Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.

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

Total hypocrisy, democrats are counting on short memories and conveniently omitting their own transgressions/positions.

So, stop it already, politics as usual. Turnabout is fair play.

Edited February 17, 2016 by expat_4_life

[Pimay1]

It's pure political posturing ... it's totally up to the Senate, and the Dems have blocked many time in the past.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) has vowed to block any of lame-duck President Obama’s Supreme Court nominations.

The media have taken to acting as if this move is unprecedented, and that a senator has never publicly stated he would intentionally

block a presidential nomination. Not true. Not only have there been several lengthy Supreme Court vacancies, but there

are plenty of past instances when senators refused to confirm a president’s nominations.

Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.

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

So stop it already, it's politics as usual.

Good find expat.

[Chicog]

It's nice to see Obama returning to the Constitution.

He has ignored it for so long, I was thinking perhaps there were no copies of it in this White House.

Looks like they dusted off one.

Please indicate one case where Obama has ignored or violated the constitution. Just because some a$$h0les on Fox news say he has, doesn't make it true.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in order unilateral changes to immigration laws in the latest such ruling against executive overreach by the President.

https://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/11/fifth-circuit-rules-president-obama-violated-constitution-on-unilateral-immigration-changes/

And what better way to demonstrate your commitment to the Constitution than by choosing to selectively ignore it and invent exceptions yourself?

[Pimay1]

It's nice to see Obama returning to the Constitution.

He has ignored it for so long, I was thinking perhaps there were no copies of it in this White House.

Looks like they dusted off one.

Please indicate one case where Obama has ignored or violated the constitution. Just because some a$$h0les on Fox news say he has, doesn't make it true.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in order unilateral changes to immigration laws in the latest such ruling against executive overreach by the President.

https://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/11/fifth-circuit-rules-president-obama-violated-constitution-on-unilateral-immigration-changes/

And what better way to demonstrate your commitment to the Constitution than by choosing to selectively ignore it and invent exceptions yourself?

Come on now surely you can beat that. Selectively choosing to ignore articles of the Constitution? Why not just do away with it altogether and do whatever comes to mind today or tomorrow to further one's own agenda? The laws of the land are based on the Constitution, not some whim of whoever is president at any given time.

[Nobb]

Obama knows nothing about the American justice system. His Sec. of State released classified information on her e-mails and he was advised to ask her to stop running for the president office. She is guilty as hell but Obama does nothing. He is lacking in many ways since he was elected President. Should not be allowed to appoint a Justice since he over looks crimes and would probably appoint a Justice that would do the same!

[Chicog]

What classified information did she release?

[Berkshire]

Obama knows nothing about the American justice system. His Sec. of State released classified information on her e-mails and he was advised to ask her to stop running for the president office. She is guilty as hell but Obama does nothing. He is lacking in many ways since he was elected President. Should not be allowed to appoint a Justice since he over looks crimes and would probably appoint a Justice that would do the same!

He has already successfully appointed two of the current justices.

[stevenl]

At the moment it is just (more and more polarized) politics: both sides shouting out loud how bad the other one is, and they can't help it if the other side does bad things.

We'll just have to wait a bit for the Obama candidate and see what happens then.