Thank you Biden, Schumer and Obama!
--------


Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

Manu Raju, Ted Barrett and Tom LoBianco, CNN
February 23, 2016

Republicans are seizing on old Democratic talking points
Focused namely on then-Sen. Joe Biden to make their case against confirmation proceedings

Washington (CNN)—Emerging from a meeting in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office Tuesday, top Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee said there will be no confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that's the "consensus" view among Republicans on the committee and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, of Texas, said the same.

"We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president," Cornyn said Tuesday as he left the meeting of top Republicans discussing how to handle the White House's promised nominee.

Graham told CNN separately he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill.

This comes after McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said McConnell was taking his marching orders from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who had called on the Senate to delay consideration of any nominee.

"That's exactly what the Republican leader is doing: Delay, delay, delay," Reid said. He angrily added that "333 days isn't enough to do the work that we do ordinarily do in 67 days."

But Democrats are uncertain over whether to bottle-up the Senate in retaliation for the GOP's hardball move. And for the second day in a row, Vice President Joe Biden is center stage as Senate Republican leaders are growing increasingly confident they can unite their party behind a hard-ball strategy to block any consideration of an Obama nominee.

Republicans are seizing on old Democratic talking points -- focused namely on then-Sen. Joe Biden -- to make their case against confirmation proceedings.

The latest revelation: A June 1992 interview Biden gave to The Washington Post, arguing against confirmation hearings of a prospective nominee by President George H.W. Bush to the nation's highest court.

"If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the President not name someone, not send a name up," Biden, then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, told the newspaper, noting how close it was to the November elections.

"If (Bush) did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee," Biden had said.

READ: 'Biden rules' cited in GOP senators' wrangle over Supreme Court

The comments from the nearly 24-year-old interview came after Republicans seized on a clip Monday of Biden making similar comments on the Senate floor. In response, Biden pushed back and said the GOP was taking his comments out of context.

"In the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the court functions as the Founding Fathers intended," Biden said in a Monday statement. "That remains my position today."

Nevertheless, the comments gave new ammunition to the hardening GOP lines against anyone the President sends to Capitol Hill.

Republicans are worried that giving the new nominee an opportunity to present his or her case before a national audience will only give the White House momentum in confirming a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia, tipping the balance of the court. But it could present bad optics, especially if the nominee is viewed as highly qualified and Republicans refuse to meet with him or her.

Emerging from a leadership meeting Monday evening, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee, flatly said "no" when asked if the Senate should convene hearings, saying voters in November should render the judgment.

McConnell said on the floor Monday night that he and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley were unified against Obama sending anyone up. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a swing GOP vote and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, came out Monday against confirming anyone this year.

And some vulnerable Republicans were prepared to side with their party's leadership as well, a heartening development for the Senate GOP.

"I think we should not confirm someone this year, I think we should let the people weigh in," said Sen. Rob Portman, a vulnerable Republican up for reelection from the battleground state of Ohio. "The credibility of the court will be enhanced by that, too."

The Senate Republican members of the committee plan to huddle Tuesday morning in McConnell's office before a lunch with the full GOP Conference, where party leaders expect the party to be mostly unified.

But at the same time, two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine -- support holding hearings, giving Democrats confidence divisions are bound to grow in the GOP ranks once a nominee is proposed.

"We should take this process one step at a time as we always do under the regular order," Collins told CNN. "I would expect that there would be a hearing on a nominee when it's sent to us for our consideration... The hearing would help me make a better decision."

Check this out:

Saw that. It's why I began with thanks to Biden...as well as a couple others.

I friggin love it when the Democrats have to eat their own medicine.

This is huge news.

I'm still not willing to bet the farm on the R's holding the line.

Correction - huge story.. Let's see if it actually occurs in which case it WOULD be huge news...

I do NOT trust the GOP to do anything we want them to do..

It's a done deal. Not happening.

The Committee isn't even entertaining the thought.

the consistently perfidious history of the GOP leadership, puts this into doubt.

Give me a minute, Sam. Have to look up a definition.

Puts more at stake next November plus we better hold the Senate.

McConnell ain't gonna buck Grassley,Cornyn, etal. [etal includes Cruz ]

"Duplicitous" is a better fit.

I don't use words that I can't say in one breath

then you are missing out on some of English's most expressive words. lol

I can explain how Bessel function differential equations express the neutron flux in a nuclear reactor but I can't spell most 3 syllable words. And my dsilyxea dyslexia doesn't help much either

The dems may try and fail.

I sure look for a nominee from the POS.

Republicans will not confirm, which the dems suspect, and dems will use it as an election ploy in their favor.

The conservative Republican base understands the importance of this issue and as the article Isaac put up correctly observed, standing firm on this issue will galvanize this segment of R voters, boosting R turnout. Most Dems, OTOH, aren't motivated by issues like this. As such it won't generate much "extra" D voter turnout.

In other words, the harder the Dems push on this, the more it favors Republican voter turnout while doing little or nothing to motivate the low-information voters they rely on.

So it's a R win-win.

Love it! The weaklings finally grew a pair.

The democrat rats would do nothing different, F&^$ the scumbags, the appointment will wait!

WHile it seems that way, I remain skeptical based on past performance.

McConnell has lied before.

One Senator, and all speculation not to mention it was already the 24th of June!

Senator Joe Biden was talking about reforming the judicial selection process, and that if a vacancy should occur toward the end of the year...

No such vacancy occurred, and one senators opinion has anything to do with what is required!

Nothing here!

Just more half truths from the GOP...

Phil

Dedicated to Bob:

Same here. The GOP has an incredible history of knuckling under to anything Obama has wanted. Past performance remains the greatest predictor of the future and the GOP has been all too eager to broker a deal over the last seven years. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if January 2017 passes and Obama hasn't had a Supreme Court justice confirmed.

The Congressional GOP leadership is directly responsible for the environment that led to Trump being the front runner for the nomination. People are fed up with their lack of balls, Obama and the democrats have pushed through every major initiative they have championed, the damage they have done to our nation will never be undone. The republicans COULD have stopped most of it, but they chose not to.

What everyone with their panties in a wad is forgetting is that the Constitution of the United States stipulates no specific number of justices for the Supreme Court. It's not the President who decides how many justices sit on the high court. It's up to the Congress to determine how many. So if the Senate is satisfied that for a while we have only eight justices, then we will have only eight justices.

The Senate is perfectly within its role to say they advise a lame duck President that they will not confirm a justice until a new President is seated.

What was good for the goose (a Democrat Senate) is good for the gander (a Republican Senate).

Steve.

Law dictates how many justices there are to be sitting... Congress can pass a law to change the number, but unless that is done the number is 9.

And just for interest sake in regards to Cruz and Rubio's BS;

Link

Phil

The Republicans better get the right information out to the public, repeatedly, so they dont appear as obstructionists. They need to keep the majority. They can lose more than they win if they let the Democrats play them as obstructionists. They can run ads or do interviews that state that the new president should pick this person and not a President who does not have to worry about reelection or working with the senate and the house.

The republicans need to quit pissing their panties in fear every time the democrats label them as obstructionists. A good portion of the country wants them to be obstructionists. If they'd done their job and actually obstructed something then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

They need to quit worrying about being called bad names by the democrats, grow some balls and stop the march towards communism that we've gotten out of the last seven years.

I agree.

Well said, and spot on!!

But, but (sputter) that would require some BALLS!!! (something that's been totally lacking the last 7 years)

There is something in all this to consider. Except for a couple important cases that will go back down to the lower court decisions the Sky is not going to fall if we have no SCOTUS until Jan 20th and here's why.

I don't know if anyone has ever looked at a SCOTUS Calendar or not but other than doing homework they actually only show up to "work" a total of about ten days a Month. So this would only be around 110 actual "Work days" left between now and Jan 20th.

This estimate is further reduced around 30 work days because of the three month Summer Break. So as a rough guess we are only looking at about 80 actual "work days" missed between now and inauguration day.

So in reality we are talking about only tying their hands for less than three months of actual productive work days right? Hopefully my math is close enough to make this point?

Bullshit. Democrats led by Schumer and Reid pulled this crap on Bush with EIGHTEEN months left in his term as opposed to obama's eleven. Further, Pat Leahy tried to invoke the "Thurman Rule" in 06 and when queried THIS time he said there was no such rule. Are all you democrats habitual liars? (rhetorical question)...

This is why there will be no hearings. The RINO's know we the people are watching closely. It would be hard to cave on this issue. Hasbeen

Wouldn't it have been better to just have STFU about this plan for no vote/hearings?

These folks do so little right. They want to toot their own horn when they do. Hasbeen

They haven't done anything yet.

They are shaking in their boots. Their like Rubio, they will be telling the voters what they want to hear. Hasbeen

Will Senate Republicans cave?

Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court

I'd be shocked if Obama nominated Sandoval.

Who is going to be willing to be nominated knowing that they have a snowballs chance other than an Obama hack?

Obama confident sheepish GOP will cave on Supreme Court Nominee

-----------

Jorge...Google or You-Tube Biden on Supreme Court nominations.

It's the clincher, on top of your thoughts.

O's confidence is only overshadowed by his narcissism. I'm guessing he nominates Valerie Jarret.

Media's already dubbing it the 'Biden Rule'.

Me, too. He views this as a game, and he's playing it. He will nominate a far left candidate who looks good and smiles a lot. That nominee will be toast, and will be followed quickly by another nominee who looks good and smiles a lot, and has been recently vetted with a high passing grade. Maybe a black. Maybe a woman. Maybe Loretta Lynch.

There will be a knock-down, drag-out fight over this nominee. They will try to make the Republicans look like obstructionists. "Hey -- I backed down from my first nominee and gave them exactly what they wanted. Now I give them a solid nominee they know, and approved just months ago, and they still won't play ball. The Republicans are hurting the nation."

And the next thing you know, it's the first Tuesday in November.

Steve.

Trial balloon? or Just trolling?

Hard to tell.

Be tough to throw Sandoval out in the bath water.

What does it say about Sandoval if he accepts the nomination, knowing - or at least being told in no uncertain terms - there's not going to be a hearing?

Maybe that's why it's being thrown out there now...the trial balloon.

Think of it this way, Tom.

Risk/Benefit...is Sandoval really worth blowing off vs. the dems winning either the WH, the Senate or both and selecting who they want without any headwinds?

Can anybody really see it happening? Sandoval appears to be VERY pro-second amendment.

I'm seeing it as more of a setup to get some GOP senators as saying they would consider hearings.

The Republicans should not be saying anything about whether they'll hold hearings if there is a nomination. The ball is in Obama's court, if he nominates someone, then act accordingly.

The GOP would be fools to trust Sandoval, or any other Republican who sucked Obama's dick for a nomination.

I'm seeing it as more of a setup to get some GOP senators as saying they would consider hearings.
----------

A concern of mine, too.

There are many chances for capitulation between now & Inauguration Day.

When that comes, then you can say this. Until then it's a "hope" for "change".

I agree with this.

Get them suckered into confirmation hearings, then withdraw Sandoval because of a technicality, and insert liberal nomine here _________ .

I wouldn't have any of it.

And Sandoval would be a part of this why?

Is he retarded?

If he would accept the nomination from the POS with everything that has gone on, it would be proof enough that he's not the man for the job.

The Charles Grassley response. Democrats, read it and weep.
http://www.kcci.com/news/grassley-says-he-doesnt-care-if-he-shows-up-in-history-books/38170644

DES MOINES, Iowa —Sen. Charles Grassley is defending his party's refusal to consider a U.S. Supreme Court nominee saying he doesn't care if he even shows up in the history books much less whether he's viewed favorably as chairman of the powerful judiciary committee.


KCCI Political Reporter Cynthia Fodor talked to Grassley on a conference call Wednesday.

Grassley was defensive when peppered on the conference call with questions from reporters about plans to block President Barack Obama's nominee.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid says Grassley will be remembered as the most obstructive judiciary chairman in history for being the first to refuse a Supreme Court nominee hearing.

Grassley says he and fellow Republicans believe voters deciding on a president this November should get a say in who replaces Justice Antonin Scalia who died unexpectedly on Feb. 13 in Texas.

According to a CNN source, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court. Sandoval is a former federal judge who is considered a moderate Republican.

"Does it become an issue about who he nominates? Absolutely not. It's an issue about the process and this is an opportunity for the people to have a voice in choosing next Supreme Court justice," said Grassley.

"I got a responsibility to see where my colleagues are and we have to consult with each other. You can't have the chair going in one direction and 10 members of his caucus going in another direction," said Grassley.

President Barack Obama is standing by his plan to make a nomination.

"I recognize the politics are hard for them because the easier thing to do is to give in to the most extreme voices within their party and stand pat and do nothing, but that's not our job. Our job is to fulfill our constitutional duties," Obama said Wednesday.

Meantime, a new TV ad by Justice Not Politics is airing here this week, featuring Sandra Day O'Connor calling for an immediate appointment. The ad asks Iowans to call Grassley to ask him to hold hearings, stating once again, "The Nation Looks to Iowa."

Pressure's on.

We will see if they fold their hand.

Sandoval's a setup to get the GOP second guessing itself just like you're doing here. Obama's hoping to get enough people thinking just like this to apply pressure to the weaker senators and force a vote, proving once again how spineless they are.

I don't know anything about Sandoval, this is the first time in my life I've heard his name. I know intuitively though that if Obama's willing to nominate him he can't be good for us, that much is certain. Even if the GOP leadership is willing to consider him, there's absolutely nothing to be gained by allowing a vote on him before the November elections. If the election passes and the republican loses then hearings can be held knowing that the options won't get any better under Hillary or Sanders. If the republican wins then don't hold hearings knowing that a better choice will be put forth under the new republican president. It would be stupid to do anything one way or another before November.

The Marxist pig shouldn't be allow to cause any more damage. It'll take years to undo the damage he's already caused.

Sandoval is a good man.
He says that no-one from Washington has attempted to contact him.

Death, taxes, and THIS!

No SCOTUS appointment is the best outcome. Either the GOP gets a grip next year on it or Hillary nominates at least 3 and we are screwed for decades. Oh and the 2A is gone until the revolution erupts.

It's a trap.

Could very well be. Obongo picks one that appears "clean", the GOP balk at any hearings and the Dems beat up the GOP all summer and into the fall for shirking their Constitutional duties. It would be play on the independents and undecideds.
Who can be undecided at this stage must have mush for brains.

The GOP should just shut up, vet Sandoval very thoroughly, and then wait and see if Obama actually nominates him. IF it turns out he could be a good choice (review his record with a fine tooth comb), AND Obama nominates him, then consider it. But don't play into the Dems obstructionist plan and giving them talking points for the election. I think Obama is bluffing and getting the GOP to say they will hold hearings. Call his bluff with silence.

How about "No means no"... just one time?

Because that undermines the very premise that this close to an election the next president should nominate (i.e. The Biden Rule). O could easily play along, then leak some damaging oppo research on Sandoval and force him to drop out. The GOP would have then thrown their only winning card into he discard pile.

At no point is the GOP (Senate) obligated to approve a nominee. There is no point in giving the media "obstructionist" sound bites that could be used against them in the next election cycle, when they are not necessary. The GOP is playing a card they don't need to play. Let the Dems step on themselves (see Biden).

Edit: example, an article I just ran across states "However, if Obama's intent in floating Sandoval's name was to box Republicans in to looking even more unreasonable than they already have, then it seems his ploy is already working."

Perfect example of the Dems getting something for nothing. I suspect Obama has no intent of nominating Sandoval or any other moderate candidate. But he will let the R's make fools of themselves by floating names (not actually doing anything) through other sources. Just let Obama nominate someone and then act.

Bingo

Here is the next "trial balloon".

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jane-kelly-vetting-supreme-court-obama

Democrat women are hideous.

Asssistant Federal Public Defender becomes appeals court judge and 3 years later nominated to the Supreme Court?

No. Easy enough to vote against her on lack of experience alone.

And disastrous to our rights when on the supreme court.

Senate Republicans just need to remind themselves what Obama said when he voted against John Roberts nomination to the SC. In a nutshell this is what this fight is about.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80332

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court — adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.