Dem: GOP trying to delegitimize Obama by blocking court pick

[webfact]

Dem: GOP trying to delegitimize Obama by blocking court pick
By ALAN FRAM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate's top Democrat accused Republicans Monday of trying to delegitimize Barack Obama's presidency by preventing him from filling the Supreme Court vacancy as a divided Senate convened for the first time since Antonin Scalia's death and immediately dove into election-year combat over the opening.

Firing back, Republicans highlighted June 1992 remarks by Vice President Joe Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. Biden argued then that should a Supreme Court seat become vacant — there was no opening at the time — then-President George H.W. Bush should not nominate a replacement until after that fall's presidential election.

The back-and forth underscored the high-stakes political showdown that Scalia's death has sparked, a clash that each party thinks will motivate its voters to stream to the polls in November. The Supreme Court now faces a precarious 4-4 ideological balance between right- and left-leaning justices as they consider cases on abortion, voting rights, Obama's health care law and other polarizing issues, and in

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Republicans were making "an unprecedented attempt to hold hostage an entire branch of government."

In sharp tones that typified both sides' comments since the 79-year-old jurist's Feb. 13 passing, Reid added that Republicans are pressing "a full-blown effort to delegitimize President Barack Obama, the presidency, and undermine our basic system of checks and balances."

While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., began Monday's Senate's session by praising Scalia, his own press office and the GOP chairman of the House Judiciary Committee fired back by citing the 1992 Biden remarks.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said at the time on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who heads the judiciary panel, called the remarks "The Biden Rules" and said the vice president "knows what the Senate should do."

The White House had no immediate response to the video. Both sides have spent days unearthing comments members of the other party made about court nominations years ago under presidents of different parties.

McConnell has said the president elected this November should nominate the replacement. That assertion that has drawn support from nearly all Republicans and irate, solid opposition from Democrats.

As the two parties girded for what promises to be a months-long battle, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. — who faces a difficult re-election race this year in a Democratic-leaning state — distributed an opinion column he'd written for the Chicago Sun-Times saying he looks forward to Obama selecting a nominee.

"I also recognize my duty as a senator to either vote in support or opposition to that nominee following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information," Kirk wrote. "The Senate's role in providing advice and consent is as important and significant as the president's role in proposing a nominee."

Obama is expected to announce his nomination in coming weeks. While McConnell has said he favors "deferring action in the Senate" until the voters have selected a new president, GOP senators will gather on Tuesday for the first time since Scalia's death to discuss their path forward.

Unanswered questions were making it tough for Republicans to fine-tune their approach just yet, including who Obama will name and who the GOP presidential nominee will be. Another challenge was how GOP senators facing re-election in closely divided states would strike a balance between retaining conservatives' support and avoiding accusations from independent voters of being too partisan.

One of those senators, Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, displayed no such concerns Friday. She tweeted, "W/ so much on the line, Senate should not proceed w confirmation process until American ppl have spoken by electing a new president in Nov."

Outnumbered Democrats were solidly behind Obama but seemed to face an uphill climb. They were strategizing over how to maximize pressure on Republican senators, including Ayotte, Kirk and three others seeking re-election in states Obama won in both 2008 and 2012: Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Recent decades have seen other pitched battles over Supreme Court selections, including Robert Bork's 1987 rejection and Samuel Alito's confirmation in 2006. Yet it's unusual for the Senate to wage titanic struggles over the selections, or take no action at all.

Since 1789, presidents have sent 160 Supreme Court nominations to the Senate, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Of those, 124 were confirmed.

Only 12 nominations have not reached the Senate floor, including just five instances in the 20th and 21st centuries.
___

Associated Press writer Jim Salter in Arnold, Missouri, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-23

[NeverSure]

"Since 1789, presidents have sent 160 Supreme Court nominations to the Senate, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Of those, 124 were confirmed.
Only 12 nominations have not reached the Senate floor, including just five instances in the 20th and 21st centuries."

So that proves that it isn't unprecedented at all for the Senate to say "No".

[lannarebirth]

"Since 1789, presidents have sent 160 Supreme Court nominations to the Senate, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Of those, 124 were confirmed.

Only 12 nominations have not reached the Senate floor, including just five instances in the 20th and 21st centuries."

So that proves that it isn't unprecedented at all for the Senate to say "No".

No it's not unprecedented at all. Do you understand what a pyrrhic victory is?

[ggt]

Reid added that Republicans are pressing "a full-blown effort to delegitimize President Barack Obama, the presidency, and undermine our basic system of checks and balances."

Reid's comments would be laughable if they were not so pathetic...Obama has circumvented the normal process for creating laws of the land by single-handedly signing into law changes that have not been approved by either the House or Senate...

Obama has taken over the US government...usurping Congress...causing the Congress to ask the Supreme Court to rule on his unconstitutional powers...and guess what...the one man that has stood between Obama and absolute power was Justice Scalia...who has now been eliminated...

What?

Check out some of the YouTube videos of people who do not believe Scalia died of natural causes...

[NeverSure]

"Since 1789, presidents have sent 160 Supreme Court nominations to the Senate, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Of those, 124 were confirmed.

Only 12 nominations have not reached the Senate floor, including just five instances in the 20th and 21st centuries."

So that proves that it isn't unprecedented at all for the Senate to say "No".

No it's not unprecedented at all. Do you understand what a pyrrhic victory is?

You can wait and explain that to President Trump when he makes the nomination.

Edited February 23, 2016 by NeverSure

[Publicus]

"Since 1789, presidents have sent 160 Supreme Court nominations to the Senate, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Of those, 124 were confirmed.

Only 12 nominations have not reached the Senate floor, including just five instances in the 20th and 21st centuries."

So that proves that it isn't unprecedented at all for the Senate to say "No".

We don't know why the 12 never made it to the floor. The dirty dozen maybe.

Even Bork had hearings which made it possible to Bork him.

Justice Clarence made it to the floor while Joe Biden was chair of the Judiciary Commitee. Clarence was confirmed on a 52-48 Senate vote, maybe the closest scotus confimation vote in history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of him. Thomas still writes political treatises instead of judicial opinions. Still hasn't got the hang of it yet to be a jurist instead of a political hack.

President Obama hasn't had to withdraw a selection the way GW Bush had to, which is a recent instance of a scotus candidate not even making it through the door. Another GW mission unaccomplished.

[Publicus]

Reid added that Republicans are pressing "a full-blown effort to delegitimize President Barack Obama, the presidency, and undermine our basic system of checks and balances."

Reid's comments would be laughable if they were not so pathetic...Obama has circumvented the normal process for creating laws of the land by single-handedly signing into law changes that have not been approved by either the House or Senate...

Obama has taken over the US government...usurping Congress...causing the Congress to ask the Supreme Court to rule on his unconstitutional powers...and guess what...the one man that has stood between Obama and absolute power was Justice Scalia...who has now been eliminated...

What?

Check out some of the YouTube videos of people who do not believe Scalia died of natural causes...

So now we have Scalia Deathers

Here too of course

Anyone who loved Scalia's rightwhinging on the Court will hate President Obama's nominee once the person is selected and sent into the Congress' Court crucible.

[NeverSure]

Watch Vice President Biden's impassioned speech in 1992 about why a president in his last year shouldn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. LOL. Hypocrites.

LINK

[lannarebirth]

Watch Vice President Biden's impassioned speech in 1992 about why a president in his last year shouldn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. LOL. Hypocrites.

LINK

C'mon. Let's quit the politicking. Whether Democrat or Republican, the president should be picking a SC nominee and if they're not too far out there they ought to be confirmed. That's what winning presidential elections allows for. Next time maybe your candidate will win.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/gop-cynicism-on-the-supreme-court-reaches-a-new-low.html

[mopar71]

Justice Clarence made it to the floor while Joe Biden was chair of the Judiciary Commitee. Clarence was confirmed on a 52-48 Senate vote, maybe the closest scotus confimation vote in history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of him. Thomas still writes political treatises instead of judicial opinions. Still hasn't got the hang of it yet to be a jurist instead of a political hack.

Assuming Obama nominates someone and the Senate confirms him/her...do you think the vote wouldn't be closer? Would you consider the new justice flawed because they lacked a "ringing endorsement"? Or would they be a "political hack" because they just squeezed by? Do we need another justice like that?

[Chicog]

Look it's just the Republicans pulling the same faeces they've pulled since he got elected.

[up-country_sinclair]

This is all due to hyper-partisanship run amok. The only reason Majority Leader McConnell came out with such a knuckleheaded statement about 'no nominations' was to try and appease the hyper-partisans that have infested the party.

He should have just kept quiet, waited for President Obama to submit his nomination, and then allow the Republican majority to vote the nominee down. Rinse and repeat until after the election.

There was absolutely no need for any of this, and all it's done is put the Senate majority in further jeopardy.

[Pinot]

When every aspect of your political life is about to change like it's about to change for the Republicans, you start grasping at straws and blocking the SC process is what the Republicans will do.

It's okay. It will all change in November anyway, after the election beat down that's coming to what remains of the grand old party.

[pitrevie]

Watch Vice President Biden's impassioned speech in 1992 about why a president in his last year shouldn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. LOL. Hypocrites.

LINK

I agree and if it was President Biden who chose to make an appointment to the supreme court during election year it would be hypocrisy, but he isn't and it isn't.

Edited February 23, 2016 by pitrevie

[wabothai]

You got to be an educated American to understand all of this posting.

[metisdead]

An offensive post has been removed as well as the replies.

[JAG]

"Since 1789, presidents have sent 160 Supreme Court nominations to the Senate, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Of those, 124 were confirmed.

Only 12 nominations have not reached the Senate floor, including just five instances in the 20th and 21st centuries."

So that proves that it isn't unprecedented at all for the Senate to say "No".

No it's not unprecedented at all. Do you understand what a pyrrhic victory is?

You can wait and explain that to President Trump when he makes the nomination.

Oh dear, he will want to bomb Pyraus...

[NeverSure]

Watch Vice President Biden's impassioned speech in 1992 about why a president in his last year shouldn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. LOL. Hypocrites.

LINK

C'mon. Let's quit the politicking. Whether Democrat or Republican, the president should be picking a SC nominee and if they're not too far out there they ought to be confirmed. That's what winning presidential elections allows for. Next time maybe your candidate will win.

Approving any nomination is what's winning Senate elections is all about. I think you forget that there is just one POTUS but 100 senators.The POTUS needs the consent of the Senate.

The President doesn't get to "pick" the next justice as you put it. He gets to nominate one. The people elected a Republican majority Senate which will tell Obama to pound sand.

Obama's out of luck.

Cheers.

331

Edited February 23, 2016 by NeverSure

[Ulic]

Look it's just the Republicans pulling the same faeces they've pulled since he got elected.

Yes but none of all the other presidents were Black.

[NovaBlue05]

Sadly, the Mods jettisoned my post as they found my previous characterization of Harry Reid distasteful. Let me modify it by saying that he, and his counterpart across the aisle, are poster boys for everything that's wrong with the US Congress

[pitrevie]

Watch Vice President Biden's impassioned speech in 1992 about why a president in his last year shouldn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. LOL. Hypocrites.

LINK

If you want an example of hypocrisy how about this: