Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders can paint again the Republican leadership as obstructionists who would rather hamper a branch of the government than work across the aisle. The strange part is GOP leaders announcing plans for a categorical block of all nominees – and claiming a precedent – instead of just rejecting the nominees one at a time.īy showing their hand, conservatives might have given the eventual Democratic nominee another talking point for the general election. So it makes sense that the Republican Senate would try to block Barack Obama’s nomination. However, in most of these cases the same party controlled the White House and the Senate. President, the next Justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound. SCOTUS Blog recaps all the Supreme Court vacancies during election years in the 20th Century. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): Mr. But several of those were for seats that had become vacant in the previous year.” (The Times also has a chart that shows Supreme Court nominations dating back to George Washington’s presidency). 2016 and the new President to be sworn into office in January 2017, Republican Presidential candidates as. The New York Times notes that “Since 1900, the Senate has voted on eight Supreme Court nominees during an election year. With the Presidential elections scheduled for Nov. on Februat 5:25 PM Kayleigh McEnany When it comes to nominating a Supreme Court Justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, hypocrisy runs deep. His nomination only came after the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the nomination of Robert Bork – a candidate considered too dogmatic in his right-wing views. But the situation is different since Kennedy was nominated in 1987. That is not true since Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988 during the final year of Reagan presidency. But anyone claiming there’s a precedent or a hard and fast rule seems to be mistaken.Ĭruz added during Saturday’s debate that "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year." I don’t think that’s going to work in a republic, in a civil society.The answer is – well, pretty confusing. “We have decided,” he said according to The Associated Press, “that rather than confront disagreements, we’ll just simply annihilate the person who disagrees with me. Cruz said he would 'absolutely' filibuster before the Senate could vote on the nominee. Speaking to The Heritage Foundation to mark 25 years on the Supreme Court, Thomas did not cite the Garland blockade but noted a decline in civil behavior. President Obama said Saturday he planned to nominate a replacement for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Later Wednesday, Justice Clarence Thomas lamented that the broken confirmation process was a sign of larger problems. In his last availablity on Capitol Hill before the election, McConnell refused to entertain the possibility that the Senate may be forced to entertain a more liberal judge next year, though there may be enough centrist Republicans and those deferential to presidential prerogative to confirm a justice like Garland. Republicans have blocked from even holding hearings on the Garland nomination for more than seven months, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said the Senate will not confirm Garland in the post-election lame duck. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves.” It would turn our Justice system and our democracy on its head. “The Supreme Court could dwindle to 7, then maybe 6, Justices. “We need to treat it like the constitutional crisis it will be if Democrats don’t take back the Senate majority,” Reid said on Wednesday night in an email to members of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Under Reid, Democrats changed the Senate rules to allow all nominees but Supreme Court appointments to be approved by a majority vote. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has already suggested lowering the bar for Supreme Court nominee from 60 votes to a simple majority. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said earlier this month the GOP would be “united” in blocking a Clinton appointment, remarks he later softened.Īn indefinite GOP blockade of a Supreme Court nominee would almost certainly lead to an erosion in the Senate’s supermajority requirement. That’s a debate that we are going to have,” Cruz said, in remarks first reported by The Washington Post.Ĭruz was unlikely to vote for any Democratic nominee given his conservative ideology, but his remarks could indicate a broader shift within the GOP to halt Democrats from shifting the court’s balance to the left. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Sunday tried to shut down Beltway musings that President Obama’s latest pick for the Supreme Court could still find a way to. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. “There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |