With the passing of Antonin Scalia, Democrats are salivating at the chance to take a conservative seat off of the Supreme Court and make it liberal in one felled swoop. The problem is they have to show their partisanship and eat their own words to make it happen. Let me give you an example.
Think back to George W. Bush’s last term in office. Chuck Schumer said back then that he’d filibuster any nomination that Bush made to the high court in his last EIGHTEEN months as president. Today? Different story. Joe Biden, back then a senator said that the president should NOT appoint a Supreme Court Justice “so close to a presidential election” (again…it was 18 months!). Today? Not so much. Biden said that Republicans shouldn’t use his words against him, because he was using a hypothetical scenario. Oh! Now I get it. If it doesn’t matter because there isn’t a vacancy, then it’s ok to say that the president shouldn’t make an appointment with a year and a half remaining in his term, but when there IS a vacancy, and you’ve got the presidency, even though it’s only 11 months out from the end of his term, it’s OK to go ahead and do it? Where is the consistency in that?
This whole thing is hogwash if you ask me. Democrats are screaming that the GOP needs to leave politics out of it and take the high road…yet it was just one presidency ago, that we had an entirely different story from them. Hell, they were ready to burn down the Supreme Court if Bush were to nominate a Justice for a vacancy, EVEN THOUGH THERE WASN’T A VACANCY! Now, you know I’m all about consistency. That’s what matters, not just in politics but in life. I don’t care if you’re liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat as long as you are consistent in your beliefs and your philosophy. In this particular instance, the Democrats are NOT being consistent. And the consistent view is very simple to follow:
Barrack Obama has every right in the world to nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court. That’s his job and he certainly is well within the constitutional boundaries to do that. In fact, he’s a lot MORE within his bounds to do that than many of his illegal executive orders that he’s tried to ram through. So, we can set that one aside. Just as George W. Bush was well within HIS bounds to nominate a Justice during his last 18 months, so is Obama. Can we at least agree on that?
Now we get to the sticky part. Yes, the president can ALWAYS nominate to fill a vacancy to the high court. But unfortunately for him, he doesn’t get the right to just choose. He has to have his nomination confirmed by the US Senate. There is the rub. The Senate has to do its due diligence. They have to vet the nominee and hold hearings. They have to schedule votes. They have to bring it to the floor and have debates. They have to do all of this. And nothing in the US Constitution (I’ve checked) says they have to be expeditious about it. They can drag their feet. They can obfuscate and stall. They don’t even have to recognize that the president has made the nomination. And yes, the president CAN make a recess appointment, but that can only go for a limited time period. Basically speaking, the Senate CAN and has totally within its powers the ability to ignore a nomination of the president to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
So, can the Democrats stop crying about this, especially when they themselves brought it up during George W. Bush’s tenure? Probably not. But that’s what makes the left so much fun to watch. They’re like watching the monkeys at the zoo. Always entertaining, never serious.
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!