Online:
Visits:
Stories:

By Bunkerville, God, Guns and Guts
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Democrats have different slant on Supreme replacement now that they are in the minority

Monday, February 15, 2016 5:18

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

I picked up a couple of examples of the hypocrisy of the Democrats and Obama in particular regarding the possible lame duck appointment of a Supreme Court nominee. Just in case anyone asks, because the Media will not point out these discrepancies. Schumer and Obama were out there spouting their righteous indignation that they might not get their pick this year, but this is what they had done previously. An earlier post that may be of interest. A List of Bush Nominees blocked by the Democrats

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.

Read more: Daily Caller

First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process

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.”

Keep reading…

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in 1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

Filed under: election, Supreme Court