Posted on Sep 22, 2020
What the Constitution Actually Says about Supreme Court Judges | National Review
962
46
18
11
11
0
As always, the Constitution remains concise and straightforward.
What the Constitution Actually Says about Supreme Court Judges | National Review
Posted from nationalreview.comPosted in these groups: 
Constitution
Supreme Court
Constitution Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
This isn't the issue - it's the hypocrisy of the Republicans who blocked Obama's nominee when he had like 11 months left in his last term.
2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Thom (Thomas Roland) Tillis for U. S. Senate from North Carolina (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Senator Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
“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.” Senator Mitch McConnell, March 2016
2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Thom (Thomas Roland) Tillis for U. S. Senate from North Carolina (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Senator Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
“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.” Senator Mitch McConnell, March 2016
(6)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
SFC (Join to see) - yes true. Not the first time a politician lied or changed their mind when it became politically beneficial...but it doesn't make it morally right.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz - They all lie. I'm not registered to any political party. I think they're all dumb. But in this day and age when people can always go back and find your statements...c'mon.
People can change their beliefs - but this was no change in belief. It's just flat out hypocrisy. I know why they're doing it but doesn't make it ok.
People can change their beliefs - but this was no change in belief. It's just flat out hypocrisy. I know why they're doing it but doesn't make it ok.
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
The hypocrisy exists on both sides. It was a moot point in 2016 when a vote would have amounted in nothing as the GOP had the majority. I didn't like the fact that they did not have the vote, but either way, it was going to either be Clinton or Trump who would be getting the nominee because the Senate was not going to approve President Obama's. What this comes down to is you're pissed the GOP decided not to vote at all and voiced their position against it. What you want is for them to stand by that position. First of all, why should they? Because the DNC has been so accommodating? A show of good faith? Also note, President Trump has nothing to do with that decision back in 2016 prior to his election, so why should he have to honor it? I get that your pissed, however, the Democrats are in absolutely no position to throw stones in their glass house. So it seems to me we need to hold people accountable to what they say and decide whether the flip flops warrant voting for them again. I get that the left is very pissed about the Senate's decision here but can anyone honestly tell me they wouldn't do the same, and if they did, would those same people on the left vote their own flip flop candidate out? History proves they would not. This is one of the reasons I no longer claim to be a Republican, nor do I donate to the party anymore. I am a conservative and if I choose to donate to anyone, it would only be to that candidate (which hasn't happened in almost a decade).
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - I'm not "pissed" - it's disappointing. I'm not "pissed."
Maybe they should stand by their decision in 2016 and not be such raging hypocrites.
I'm not a Democrat or Republican and realize they both have hypocrites. But the whataboutism is ridiculous.
Maybe they should stand by their decision in 2016 and not be such raging hypocrites.
I'm not a Democrat or Republican and realize they both have hypocrites. But the whataboutism is ridiculous.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
So what if the Constitution does not mention anything beyond that? The Republicans created a precedent, and now they want to go against it because it's inconvenient.
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
McConnell made a decision back then, which was based upon circumstances of that particular time. In a recent tweet, he explained that seeing the Democrats' despicable behavior, he has changed his stance on the issue and now supports filling the vacancy. He. Changed. His. Mind.
Have you ever changed your mind on something based on new facts or situations? is it a bad thing to evolve your thinking on particular subjects?
If we revoked authority to act based upon someone changing their stance on an issue, the great majority of the Democrat Party would be out of a job, in particular, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, etc.
Have you ever changed your mind on something based on new facts or situations? is it a bad thing to evolve your thinking on particular subjects?
If we revoked authority to act based upon someone changing their stance on an issue, the great majority of the Democrat Party would be out of a job, in particular, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, etc.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG(P) (Join to see) - OH PLEASE. You have to be kidding me. He didn't "change his mind" because of "Democrats' despicable behavior." HE IS A HYPOCRITE. ALL of the Republicans are.
JFC if the Democrats did this you'd be screaming the opposite. This is why I'm not registered to any political party. You're all nuts.
Even Graham said "You can use my words against me" if there were a Republican president elected in 2016 and they had a SCOTUS seat come up at the end of their term.
JFC if the Democrats did this you'd be screaming the opposite. This is why I'm not registered to any political party. You're all nuts.
Even Graham said "You can use my words against me" if there were a Republican president elected in 2016 and they had a SCOTUS seat come up at the end of their term.
(3)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
SSG(P) (Join to see) - McConnell went on record in 2008 about his crusade to make Obama a 1 term president. He spent the entire 8 years blocking everything he could, including judicial nominations. It was his actions that were despicable. Nothing can justify his flip-flop. Nothing can shield him from the charge of hypocrisy.
(4)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Can you honestly say the Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing if given the chance (prior to the so called precedent)? If you believe they would have acted in good faith, I have a bridge to sell you. I don't like the flip flop politics either, as I've already stated to you in agreeing it was hypocritical, but let's not try to claim either party would take the so called high ground here.
Countless times I've noted the positions and actual words uttered by Democrats running for office and then completely change their position once elected. When pointed out, the response I typically get is "they changed their mind, so what?"...
The thing is here, whether they voted on Garland or not, Obama still would not have been successful. The GOP would not have voted for him. Either way, it would have been Clinton's or Trump's choice.
Countless times I've noted the positions and actual words uttered by Democrats running for office and then completely change their position once elected. When pointed out, the response I typically get is "they changed their mind, so what?"...
The thing is here, whether they voted on Garland or not, Obama still would not have been successful. The GOP would not have voted for him. Either way, it would have been Clinton's or Trump's choice.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Hopefully people would actually read and know this but the lefts blinders and power grab will be full on
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google