Reply With Quote
there's a new norm: you have to win the presidency and the Senate to pick a judge.
so much for letting the people decide.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-w...-politics.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has existed with its full complement of nine justices for close to 150 years, no matter who occupied the White House. Now some Republican lawmakers suggest they would be fine with just eight for four years more rather than have Hillary Clinton fill the vacancy.
The court has operated with eight justices for the past eight months as Republicans controlling the Senate have blocked confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his GOP colleagues have insisted that American voters should have a say, choosing the next president in Tuesday's election. The 45th president — either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump — would fill the current vacancy created when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February.
But several Republicans have said if the voters elect Clinton, they'll block her nominees, effectively abandoning their advice and consent role for her entire term.
"If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court," North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday. CNN obtained a copy of the audio.
GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he "can't imagine" voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president.
Looks like some in the GOP like the cons ution a lot less than they say they do, and this is yet another symptom of a party that has gone over the edge into whackadoodle territory.
there's a new norm: you have to win the presidency and the Senate to pick a judge.
so much for letting the people decide.
"We think the People should have a say in who the next Supreme Court justice should be. Elections have consequences, you know" unless, of course, the people choose wrongly, in which case the nanny state GOP will take over because the consequences of elections are too important to be left to commoners.
One would think the people have spoken after electing Obama twice and HRC once, but no. The GOP knows better than to respect three elections...
Three consecutive Presidents reflect the whim of a fleeting majority, clearly.
No mandate to govern til my side wins...
Repugs' priority is $Bs from BigDonors.
They don't GAF about governing, laws, truth, science, the Cons ution.
Interesting idea in the Express-News: former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, who won several statewide elections as a Republican but isn't really an ideologue, as a Clinton SCOTUS nominee (and I'd guess, more specifically, a Scalia replacement). Given his roots, the odds are considerable that both Cornyn and Cruz have sung his praises frequently in the past. Nominating Jefferson could make it hard for them to vote against confirmation.
http://www.expressnews.com/news/news...witter-premium
Where is the outrage about this on the right?
Abdicating cons utional responsibility gets no outrage?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions