What's suspicious about it? We all know exactly what happened. Every Republicans is now such a pussy, none of them will be willing to show the country what really happened, so the Democrats are going to pull stuff like this so that they can continue to trounce the other side in every possible way.
I don't see why all the talking heads are even contemplating the chance that Obama will get his nominee
confirmed by the senate. There is a better chance that the fake climate deal he supposedly made on
his last trip to China will bare fruit. Obama goes to China & naturally reporters are enamored with a fake Climate deal.
Scalia dies and newsmen try to make a big deal about whether his nominee will be confirmed, the answer
for those who somehow are still wondering is 100% no, never.
Trump will nominate his replacement, it's strange but about 2 months ago I thought he might have considered
Cruz for the post but Cruz' recent behavior makes that unlikely.
confirmed by the senate. There is a better chance that the fake climate deal he supposedly made on
his last trip to China will bare fruit. Obama goes to China & naturally reporters are enamored with a fake Climate deal.
Scalia dies and newsmen try to make a big deal about whether his nominee will be confirmed, the answer
for those who somehow are still wondering is 100% no, never.
Trump will nominate his replacement, it's strange but about 2 months ago I thought he might have considered
Cruz for the post but Cruz' recent behavior makes that unlikely.
The absence of Scalia, who died from natural causes at a hunting ranch in Texas on Saturday, has left the Supreme Court split with four Democratic and Republican appointees each.
Now a number of pending cases on abortion, immigration and affirmative action, among others, could be left with a 4-4 tie with the loss of conservative Scalia tipping the majority.
- SHARE PICTURE
+3
Justice Antonin Scalia’s death will have an immediate impact on Supreme Court cases involving abortion, immigration and affirmative action, among others
He died on a hunting ranch in Texas?
Did anyone check Dick Cheney's alibi?
If I die of a heart attack tonight (late 30's, excellent shape) they will find me in the morning with a pillow over my head. My wife gets up 30 minutes before I do so I put a pillow over my head so I can sleep an extra 30. I get your point and agree that there should be an autopsy performed. He was 79 years old and overweight.
Better chance that he was shagging Ruthie B than some sort of foul play but hey, ya never know
Very suspicious. Declared dead by myocardial infarction over the phone by a justice of the peace. Not seen by ME or physician. No autopsy. Embalmed prior to leaving Texas for Virginia on Tuesday. No inquest as required by Texas law when there is an unattended death. You would think a Justice would have the same rights as an everyday citizen.......nothing to see here move along.......
We don't elect a POTUS for 3 years, we elect them for 4, or in this case 8. It's disgusting that the R's will just continue to do what they've done for 7 years, obstruct and blame. It is Obama's duty to submit a replacement ASAP. If Obama submits one of the Judges that the Senate approved Unanimously, and this time the Obstructionist R's vote him or her down, they will have to answer to the people in November. I said Months ago, the Supreme Court will ultimately be the biggest topic in the election, and this will just make it even bigger.
Elizabeth Warren Demolishes Arguments Against Filling Scalia’s Supreme Court Seat
It's the Constitution, stupid.
02/14/2016 01:26 pm ET
Daniel MaransReporter, The Huffington Post
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) eviscerated the main conservative argument against filling Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court seat during President Barack Obama’s last year in office.
Warren, an acclaimed legal scholar, explained in a viral Facebook post that since the American people re-elected Obama in 2012, his power to nominate a replacement has already been approved by the voters.
Warren referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) claim that it would be undemocratic to seat an Obama nominee in the president’s last year. McConnell "is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice,” Warren wrote. “In fact, they did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”
The clause in the constitution empowering the president to name Supreme Court justices -- Article II, Section 2 -- does not include an exception for when the president only has one year left in office, Warren noted.
Of course, McConnell himself has acknowledged as much in the past, since he votedto confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988, the last year of Reagan’s presidency.
Warren’s post had been shared more than 75,000 times as of noon on Sunday.
It's the Constitution, stupid.
02/14/2016 01:26 pm ET
Daniel MaransReporter, The Huffington Post
ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) dismissed claims that seating a Supreme Court justice in President Obama's last year in office would be undemocratic.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) dismissed claims that seating a Supreme Court justice in President Obama's last year in office would be undemocratic.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) eviscerated the main conservative argument against filling Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court seat during President Barack Obama’s last year in office.
Warren, an acclaimed legal scholar, explained in a viral Facebook post that since the American people re-elected Obama in 2012, his power to nominate a replacement has already been approved by the voters.
Warren referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) claim that it would be undemocratic to seat an Obama nominee in the president’s last year. McConnell "is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice,” Warren wrote. “In fact, they did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”
The clause in the constitution empowering the president to name Supreme Court justices -- Article II, Section 2 -- does not include an exception for when the president only has one year left in office, Warren noted.
Of course, McConnell himself has acknowledged as much in the past, since he votedto confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988, the last year of Reagan’s presidency.
Warren’s post had been shared more than 75,000 times as of noon on Sunday.
We actually care about it, unlike you liars and hypocrites who use it every 3 words, but really only care about it when it suits you, and even then misinterpret it to suit whatever meaning you want, like ISIS and the Quran. Just stay down Gassy.
Gary Cameron/Reuters
JAY MICHAELSON
GOT HYPOCRISY?
02.15.16 12:00 AM ET
GOP Cynicism on the Supreme Court Reaches a New Low
No one’s ever observed the ‘Thurmond Rule’ barring the confirmation of judges in the last year of a presidential term. And there’s no precedent for what Senate Republicans are planning now.
A spokesman for Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the ‘Thurmond Rule,’ “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said.
Similarly, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a Presidential election.”
Even a Bush spokesperson said that the “only thing clear about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule’ is that there is no such defined rule.”
Of course, all that was in 2008, when George W. Bush was the lame-duck president and Democrats controlled the Senate.
Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked,shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office.
In fact, while there’s hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, a review of recent history shows indicate more of it on the Republican side.
Let’s begin at the beginning. For 166 years, Supreme Court confirmations used to be a matter of course, with rare exceptions. In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, they usually took only a few days. The current process of Judiciary committee hearings began only in 1955, in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education, with segregationists and other conservatives outraged at the “activist” Warren Court.
The custom of not confirming judges in a presidential election year began with the avowed segregationist Strom Thurmond, who opposed LBJ’s appointment of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice back in 1968. (Notice, by the way, the “Thurmond Rule” wasn’t even about filling a vacancy – it was about moving Fortas from Associate to Chief Justice.)
Prior to that time, Supreme Court nominations in election years were par for the course. Justices Frank Murphy was nominated in 1940, Cardozo in 1932, Clarke and Brandeis in 1916, and Pitney in 1912.
But there were many reasons for conservatives to oppose Fortas. As an associate justice, he had maintained an unusually close relationship with LBJ (allegedly, Fortas helped write one of LBJ’s State of the Union speeches). There was a minor scandal involving speaking fees. There was Fortas’s religion – it was one thing to have a “Jewish seat” on the Supreme Court, but quite another to have a Jew as Chief.
But mostly, it was ideology. Fortas was a full-fledged member of the Warren Court, extending due process rights to minors, and writing the opinion that effectively banned creationism from public schools.
The tactic worked. The Fortas appointment was withdrawn, and the position of chief justice has been held by a conservative for the last 46 years (Burger, Rehnquist, Roberts).
Since then, the “Thurmond Rule” has been understood as holding that lifetime appointments of all types should not be made in the final six months of a president’s term in office.
In practice, however, the “Thurmond Rule” could best be described as the “Sore Loser’s Rule,” since it is wielded by whichever party doesn’t hold the White House at the moment. In July, 2004, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said there was no such thing. And Republican Senator John Cornyn threatened in 2008 that if Democrats invoked the Thurmond Rule, Republicans would go nuclear: “We could require 60 votes on every single motion, bill and procedural move before the Senate,” he said at the time.
Now, it’s the Republicans’ turn to invoke the rule, and Democrats’ turn to be outraged.
But some hypocrisy is more equal than others.
First, the Thurmond Rule has never been extended back this far. In 2008, Democrats didn’t invoke it until the late summer; Senator Dianne Feinstein said it kicks in after the first party convention. It’s February now, and even the longest Supreme Court confirmation in history – that of Justice Brandeis, in 1916 – took 125 days. (Brandeis was called a “radical” and bitterly opposed by conservatives, with antisemitism even more overt than Fortas later faced.) So this would be an unprecedented expansion of the “Rule.”
Second, the ‘Rule’ has never been applied to Supreme Court vacancies. On the contrary, when President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court, he was confirmed 97-0 on February 3, 1988, with Senator McConnell voting in favor.
Now, in fairness, Kennedy was nominated in November, 1987, after the Bork-Ginsburg controversies had left the court with eight justices for five months – seven months counting Kennedy’s confirmation. It was arguably a special case. Moreover, Kennedy was a consensus nominee who has emerged as the swing vote over the last decade precisely because he votes equally with conservatives (as in Citizens United) and liberals (as in the same-sex marriage cases).
But if no justice were confirmed now, the vacancy would be even longer: twelve months at least.
Third, the statistics cut sharply against Republicans.
According to a detailed study by the Brookings Institute, the Senate has already slowed down the pace of judicial confirmations to record levels. In the case of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, confirmations didn’t slow down until the second half of the presidents’ eighth year in office. In their seventh years, the Senate confirmed 23, 17, and 29 judges, respectively. In Obama’s seventh year? 10.
In other words, the two-term Republican presidents fared almost twice as well as the two-term Democrat presidents, with Obama faring the worst by far.
Moreover, the “Thurmond Rule” has rarely been applied with the orthodoxy Republicans now are claiming. An exhaustive 2008 report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service unearthed a goldmine of historical information that belies the current majority’s claims:
In 1980, the Republican-led Senate confirmed 10 out of 13 judges nominated by President Carter in September, with Senator Thurmond himself coming under fire for trying to block some of them.
In October, 1988, the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary committee led by Joe Biden confirmed 11 out of 22 of Ronald Reagan’s judicial appointees. In October, 1992, the same committee confirmed 11 of George H.W. Bush’s.
In 2000, the Republican-led Senate confirmed 31 of President Clinton’s 56 nominations. And the 2004 Senate (narrow Republican majority, Republican president) confirmed a whopping 80% of nominees—despite claims that the Democrat minority was obstructing them.
In 2008, a Brookings Institute review found that George W. Bush’s confirmation rate was 58% for circuit court nominations, 43% for district courts—in other words, roughly the same.
In short, until this one, an opposing-party Senate has never observed the Thurmond Rule. Not in 1980, not in 1988, not in 1992, not in 2000. There are typically slowdowns in confirmations, but never a standstill. And the rule has never been invoked before the summer, let alone before the cherry blossoms bloom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we’re in new territory this year, and at new heights of hypocrisy.
JAY MICHAELSONGOT HYPOCRISY?
02.15.16 12:00 AM ET
GOP Cynicism on the Supreme Court Reaches a New Low
No one’s ever observed the ‘Thurmond Rule’ barring the confirmation of judges in the last year of a presidential term. And there’s no precedent for what Senate Republicans are planning now.
A spokesman for Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should confirm judicial appointees through at least the summer. The cutoff for confirming judges in an election year, known as the ‘Thurmond Rule,’ “doesn’t need to be June, especially because we’re so far behind on the legislative calendar,” he said.
Similarly, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Let me say this about the Thurmond Rule. It is a myth. It does not exist. There is no reason for stopping the confirmation of judicial nominees in the second half of a year in which there is a Presidential election.”
Even a Bush spokesperson said that the “only thing clear about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule’ is that there is no such defined rule.”
Of course, all that was in 2008, when George W. Bush was the lame-duck president and Democrats controlled the Senate.
Now that it’s 2016, and the tables are turned, McConnell has said he’d be shocked,shocked if President Obama nominated a Supreme Court justice as late as February of his final year in office.
In fact, while there’s hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, a review of recent history shows indicate more of it on the Republican side.
Let’s begin at the beginning. For 166 years, Supreme Court confirmations used to be a matter of course, with rare exceptions. In the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, they usually took only a few days. The current process of Judiciary committee hearings began only in 1955, in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education, with segregationists and other conservatives outraged at the “activist” Warren Court.
The custom of not confirming judges in a presidential election year began with the avowed segregationist Strom Thurmond, who opposed LBJ’s appointment of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice back in 1968. (Notice, by the way, the “Thurmond Rule” wasn’t even about filling a vacancy – it was about moving Fortas from Associate to Chief Justice.)
Prior to that time, Supreme Court nominations in election years were par for the course. Justices Frank Murphy was nominated in 1940, Cardozo in 1932, Clarke and Brandeis in 1916, and Pitney in 1912.
But there were many reasons for conservatives to oppose Fortas. As an associate justice, he had maintained an unusually close relationship with LBJ (allegedly, Fortas helped write one of LBJ’s State of the Union speeches). There was a minor scandal involving speaking fees. There was Fortas’s religion – it was one thing to have a “Jewish seat” on the Supreme Court, but quite another to have a Jew as Chief.
But mostly, it was ideology. Fortas was a full-fledged member of the Warren Court, extending due process rights to minors, and writing the opinion that effectively banned creationism from public schools.
The tactic worked. The Fortas appointment was withdrawn, and the position of chief justice has been held by a conservative for the last 46 years (Burger, Rehnquist, Roberts).
Since then, the “Thurmond Rule” has been understood as holding that lifetime appointments of all types should not be made in the final six months of a president’s term in office.
In practice, however, the “Thurmond Rule” could best be described as the “Sore Loser’s Rule,” since it is wielded by whichever party doesn’t hold the White House at the moment. In July, 2004, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said there was no such thing. And Republican Senator John Cornyn threatened in 2008 that if Democrats invoked the Thurmond Rule, Republicans would go nuclear: “We could require 60 votes on every single motion, bill and procedural move before the Senate,” he said at the time.
Now, it’s the Republicans’ turn to invoke the rule, and Democrats’ turn to be outraged.
But some hypocrisy is more equal than others.
First, the Thurmond Rule has never been extended back this far. In 2008, Democrats didn’t invoke it until the late summer; Senator Dianne Feinstein said it kicks in after the first party convention. It’s February now, and even the longest Supreme Court confirmation in history – that of Justice Brandeis, in 1916 – took 125 days. (Brandeis was called a “radical” and bitterly opposed by conservatives, with antisemitism even more overt than Fortas later faced.) So this would be an unprecedented expansion of the “Rule.”
Second, the ‘Rule’ has never been applied to Supreme Court vacancies. On the contrary, when President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court, he was confirmed 97-0 on February 3, 1988, with Senator McConnell voting in favor.
Now, in fairness, Kennedy was nominated in November, 1987, after the Bork-Ginsburg controversies had left the court with eight justices for five months – seven months counting Kennedy’s confirmation. It was arguably a special case. Moreover, Kennedy was a consensus nominee who has emerged as the swing vote over the last decade precisely because he votes equally with conservatives (as in Citizens United) and liberals (as in the same-sex marriage cases).
But if no justice were confirmed now, the vacancy would be even longer: twelve months at least.
Third, the statistics cut sharply against Republicans.
According to a detailed study by the Brookings Institute, the Senate has already slowed down the pace of judicial confirmations to record levels. In the case of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, confirmations didn’t slow down until the second half of the presidents’ eighth year in office. In their seventh years, the Senate confirmed 23, 17, and 29 judges, respectively. In Obama’s seventh year? 10.
In other words, the two-term Republican presidents fared almost twice as well as the two-term Democrat presidents, with Obama faring the worst by far.
Moreover, the “Thurmond Rule” has rarely been applied with the orthodoxy Republicans now are claiming. An exhaustive 2008 report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service unearthed a goldmine of historical information that belies the current majority’s claims:
In 1980, the Republican-led Senate confirmed 10 out of 13 judges nominated by President Carter in September, with Senator Thurmond himself coming under fire for trying to block some of them.
In October, 1988, the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary committee led by Joe Biden confirmed 11 out of 22 of Ronald Reagan’s judicial appointees. In October, 1992, the same committee confirmed 11 of George H.W. Bush’s.
In 2000, the Republican-led Senate confirmed 31 of President Clinton’s 56 nominations. And the 2004 Senate (narrow Republican majority, Republican president) confirmed a whopping 80% of nominees—despite claims that the Democrat minority was obstructing them.
In 2008, a Brookings Institute review found that George W. Bush’s confirmation rate was 58% for circuit court nominations, 43% for district courts—in other words, roughly the same.
In short, until this one, an opposing-party Senate has never observed the Thurmond Rule. Not in 1980, not in 1988, not in 1992, not in 2000. There are typically slowdowns in confirmations, but never a standstill. And the rule has never been invoked before the summer, let alone before the cherry blossoms bloom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we’re in new territory this year, and at new heights of hypocrisy.
Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2005: 'The President, and the President alone, nominates judges'
By Hunter
Saturday Feb 13, 2016 · 8:01 PM EST
Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges.
By Hunter
Saturday Feb 13, 2016 · 8:01 PM EST
Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges.
"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."
"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"
Take it from Sen. Mitch McConnell: for the Senate to block a sitting president from nominating a Supreme Court nominee—not just a specific nominee, mind you, but any nominee at all, would put the Constitution of the United States itself at stake. And he's a patriot, so he would never even consider such a thing.
Welcome Back The Great John Oliver:
HBO
MARLOW STERN
HE'S BA-ACK
02.14.16 11:48 PM ET
John Oliver Slams Republicans Over Blocking Antonin Scalia’s SCOTUS Replacement
In his return to HBO’s ‘Last Week Tonight,’ the Brit took aim at Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership for advocating against the president’s Constitutional right.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released the following statement just one hour after the sudden passing of divisive Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
While there have been Senate objections to SCOTUS appointees in the past under similar circumstances, launching an instant, preemptive rejection of any candidate the president chooses is a first.
And after a long hiatus, Last Week Tonight’s John Oliver took time on his late-night HBO program first to honor Scalia for being a “hugely significant justice” whose “death is the end of an era on the Supreme Court,” before addressing the elephant in the room: “The fact is, there is now a huge vacancy on the Supreme Court that needs to be filled—or, if you listened to the Republicans in the last 24 hours, not,” said Oliver.
He then threw to a clip of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump endorsing Sen. McConnell’s historic stand during last night’s South Carolina debate, saying, “I think it’s up to Mitch McConnell and everybody else to stop it. It’s called delay, delay, delay.”
“Well, that does not bode well because Mitch McConnell is actually pretty good at delaying things for people—whether it’s legislation, court appointments, or orgasms,” joked Oliver. “Believe me, if you ever need to ‘delay, delay, delay’ [an orgasm], just picture [McConnell’s] face and I guarantee you nothing will happen possibly for the rest of your life.
“Yes, the Strom Thurmond Rule,” Oliver said. “Now, I’m not surprised that there is one, it’s just I thought it would always be about the amount of hush money required to keep your secret family a secret, or how racist an old person is allowed to be before their age is no longer an excuse.”
“If Mitch McConnell does want to invoke this rule, he will need to be careful because during the George W. Bush years, when Democrats were trying to pull this Thurmond Rule bullshit to prevent lower court appointments, he was pretty categorical about it,” he added.
He then threw to a 2008 clip of Sen. McConnell addressing the Senate:
“Our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule,’ under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year,” said McConnell. “This seeming obsession with this rule that doesn’t exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly-needed vacancies.”
Oops. Sen. McConnell also stated in 2005 that he supported a sitting president’s absolute right to nominate judges, although that—again—was when a Republican sat in the White House.
“Yes, it seems the ‘Thurmond Rule’ is a bit like God: when things are going your way, you don’t bring it up a lot, but as soon as you’re in trouble it is all that you talk about,” quipped Oliver.
Of course, since the Thurmond Rule applies to the last six months of a president’s term, it wouldn’t even come into effect until July 20. Either way, to outright deny President Obama’s choice to a fair nomination process would likely go against the wishes of the late Antonin Scalia, who, as Sen. Marco Rubio stated in the recent South Carolina debate, understood that the Constitution was not a “living and breathing” document and was meant to be interpreted by its “original meaning.”
“He’s right,” said Oliver. “Scalia loved the letter of the law—so let’s look at the letter as it applies here, shall we? Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, ‘[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court. That’s the president. This president. There is nothing in the Constitution about you getting to delay him for a year because of some bullshit tradition.”
He continued, “So to Senate Republicans, I say this: If you really loved Antonin Scalia, you wouldn’t honor his memory by desecrating the thing he loved the most. Think of Scalia like a Britta filter or a child’s hamster: Why don’t you honor his entire reason for being by swiftly and efficiently replacing him.”
HBO
MARLOW STERNHE'S BA-ACK
02.14.16 11:48 PM ET
John Oliver Slams Republicans Over Blocking Antonin Scalia’s SCOTUS Replacement
In his return to HBO’s ‘Last Week Tonight,’ the Brit took aim at Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership for advocating against the president’s Constitutional right.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released the following statement just one hour after the sudden passing of divisive Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
While there have been Senate objections to SCOTUS appointees in the past under similar circumstances, launching an instant, preemptive rejection of any candidate the president chooses is a first.
And after a long hiatus, Last Week Tonight’s John Oliver took time on his late-night HBO program first to honor Scalia for being a “hugely significant justice” whose “death is the end of an era on the Supreme Court,” before addressing the elephant in the room: “The fact is, there is now a huge vacancy on the Supreme Court that needs to be filled—or, if you listened to the Republicans in the last 24 hours, not,” said Oliver.
He then threw to a clip of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump endorsing Sen. McConnell’s historic stand during last night’s South Carolina debate, saying, “I think it’s up to Mitch McConnell and everybody else to stop it. It’s called delay, delay, delay.”
“Well, that does not bode well because Mitch McConnell is actually pretty good at delaying things for people—whether it’s legislation, court appointments, or orgasms,” joked Oliver. “Believe me, if you ever need to ‘delay, delay, delay’ [an orgasm], just picture [McConnell’s] face and I guarantee you nothing will happen possibly for the rest of your life.
Oliver then explored the “strange, unwritten rule” that the Senate is using to justify the block: the ‘Thurmond Rule,’ which says that no president in the last six months of their presidency should be able to appoint a judge that has a lifetime appointment.
“Yes, the Strom Thurmond Rule,” Oliver said. “Now, I’m not surprised that there is one, it’s just I thought it would always be about the amount of hush money required to keep your secret family a secret, or how racist an old person is allowed to be before their age is no longer an excuse.”
“If Mitch McConnell does want to invoke this rule, he will need to be careful because during the George W. Bush years, when Democrats were trying to pull this Thurmond Rule bullshit to prevent lower court appointments, he was pretty categorical about it,” he added.
He then threw to a 2008 clip of Sen. McConnell addressing the Senate:
“Our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule,’ under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year,” said McConnell. “This seeming obsession with this rule that doesn’t exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly-needed vacancies.”
Oops. Sen. McConnell also stated in 2005 that he supported a sitting president’s absolute right to nominate judges, although that—again—was when a Republican sat in the White House.
“Yes, it seems the ‘Thurmond Rule’ is a bit like God: when things are going your way, you don’t bring it up a lot, but as soon as you’re in trouble it is all that you talk about,” quipped Oliver.
Of course, since the Thurmond Rule applies to the last six months of a president’s term, it wouldn’t even come into effect until July 20. Either way, to outright deny President Obama’s choice to a fair nomination process would likely go against the wishes of the late Antonin Scalia, who, as Sen. Marco Rubio stated in the recent South Carolina debate, understood that the Constitution was not a “living and breathing” document and was meant to be interpreted by its “original meaning.”
“He’s right,” said Oliver. “Scalia loved the letter of the law—so let’s look at the letter as it applies here, shall we? Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, ‘[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court. That’s the president. This president. There is nothing in the Constitution about you getting to delay him for a year because of some bullshit tradition.”
He continued, “So to Senate Republicans, I say this: If you really loved Antonin Scalia, you wouldn’t honor his memory by desecrating the thing he loved the most. Think of Scalia like a Britta filter or a child’s hamster: Why don’t you honor his entire reason for being by swiftly and efficiently replacing him.”
FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Ex0Z300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson
Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:
The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.
As it should this time.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40ExFA7y4
:bigfinger
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Ex0Z300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson
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.
The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.
As it should this time.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40ExFA7y4
:bigfinger
