Republicans and the Supreme Court

Screen Shot 2016-02-16 at 1.02.27 AM

There is a chance for courage among the Republican presidential nominees—if only any of the six remaining men were courageous.

In case you somehow missed this, in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky senator and majority leader, has vowed to block consideration of any nominee put forth by President Obama. Thus far members of the party have fully supported McConnell’s stance—meaning no matter who Obama offers up, that person will be denied so much as a hearing.

It’s absolutely pathetic.

It’s also an opportunity.

Were I Jeb Bush or John Kasich, I’d stand up on this one. Instead of following the sheep-like far-right tendencies of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, I’d take the opposite stance. Hell, here’s exactly what I’d say. “I do not think Barack Obama has been a good president. I agree with almost nothing he does. But he is the president, and out of respect for the office, we need to allow him to nominate someone, then we need to debate it. That doesn’t mean we have to support the person. Hell, odds are—based upon the president’s crazy liberal track record—we won’t support the person. But we have to stop being this party that comes off as angry, closed-minded, shutting down everything that doesn’t go our way. The president has the right to nominate a justice, and we should allow that. Then let’s have a real debate over why he/she is right or wrong for the Supreme Court. America has a long tradition of people working together; of asking tough questions; of challenging; of debating. And this is a debate we should have—we need to have.

“One more thing: I keep hearing Senator Cruz citing examples of how Democrats didn’t allow votes. Well, I want to be better than the Democrats. Why stoop down to that level? We’re here to govern and to work. Leadership means doing just that. Again, let the president nominate his choice, and let’s show this nation why we have the better judgement.”

4 thoughts on “Republicans and the Supreme Court”

  1. I think this is going to backfire on them big time.
    Their obstructionist behavior etablished before Obama ever took office has turned many of us against the GOTP. There are likely nominees that the Senate has approved, unanimously, for lower court positions. If they outright reject them even my staunch conservative friends have said it would be too much.

  2. A laudable thought, but impossible. Leading up to the South Carolina primary, every one of these clowns are trying to tack harder right than the next guy. I’m surprised one of them hasn’t proposed the return of slavery in an effort to curry favor.

  3. How times have changed for Democrats…

    The New York Times editorial board, October 5, 1987, urging the Senate to reject the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork: The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

    Or how about this:

    Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

    “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.

    Being hypocritical is fine as long as the ends justify the means right?

    1. Bork and Ginsburg were both nominated and didn’t make it through. Kennedy did. The system worked. When Schumer made those comments there were no openings on the court to be filled. Thanks for playing.

Leave a Reply to JOregon Cancel reply