Senator Obama voted to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee. Is what's good for the goose also good for the gander?

2016-02-15T09:53:19-05:00

http://www.weaselzippers.us/256744-flashback-1st-potus-in-history-to-have-voted-to-filibuster-a-scotus-nominee-now-hopes-for-clean-process/
Here we thought that 2016 couldn't get any worse with its contentious race for the White House. Now this: A chance for President Obama to establish his legacy by irrevocably altering the Supreme Court. You bet it's going to be a battle, unexpected like the Battle of the Bulge

There's going to be a lot of political posturing. How dare the Republics hold up the President's nominee. But don't mention that the President himself attempted the same thing when he served in the Senate. And, of course, there's the infamous lies and libels that derailed the confirmation of a distinguished jurist, Robert Bork, perfected by that "Liberal Lion", Teddy Kennedy. The pots are going to be singing a chorus of the "Kettle's Black".

http://www.weaselzippers.us/256744-flashback-1st-potus-in-history-to-have-voted-to-filibuster-a-scotus-nominee-now-hopes-for-clean-process/

FLASHBACK: 1st POTUS In History To Have Voted To Filibuster A SCOTUS Nominee Now Hopes for Clean...

President Obama’s expressed hope today in his weekly address “that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past” runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 10:01 AM

2016-02-15T10:01:38-05:00

come on, back then he really don't mean that. :) lol

Response by MAJ David Wallace made Feb 15 at 2016 10:08 AM

2016-02-15T10:08:12-05:00

Well, you know what they say about karma and payback!!!!! You've sown to the wind, no reap the whirlwind!!!!

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Feb 15 at 2016 10:15 AM

2016-02-15T10:15:24-05:00

Him and the liberal media will forget that little piece of Information.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 10:28 AM

2016-02-15T10:28:21-05:00

We're just beginning 2016. A lot can happen in 11 months. I expect the rest of the year will be full of controversy.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 10:37 AM

2016-02-15T10:37:42-05:00

Same action, different context. Justice Alito was still confirmed. And this time, Now all three branches are going to be in a degree of flux and transition. Should it be done when it could have consequences beyond just the Supreme Court?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 10:49 AM

2016-02-15T10:49:10-05:00

The republicans have every right to filibuster the nominee. Just the way politics is played these days.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 10:51 AM

2016-02-15T10:51:20-05:00

If I were to guess I would say that the seat will most likely remain empty for the remainder of his term. Until then the court will be divided 4-4. ( Assuming justice Kennedy doesn't side with the liberals as he has done in the past.)

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 11:54 AM

2016-02-15T11:54:42-05:00

In politics is is always right when you do it, but wrong when they do it.

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Feb 15 at 2016 12:11 PM

2016-02-15T12:11:03-05:00

Some have said there will be a "Recess Appointment" if the Senate refuses to grant a hearing and vote on a USSC nomination. I was incorrect earlier when I said that was not an option in this case, it is, BUT there is a way that the Senate can prevent this. Don't go into Recess.
0bama has already had his Recess Appointments thrown out by the USSC, so this is a dangerous option for him. Besides any Recess Appointment is not a permanent appointment unless it is confirmed by the Senate when they return from a recess. This was done by Harry Reid during the last two years of the Bush Presidency:
"... during the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions."
0bama tried to circumvent the "pro forma sessions" but was slapped down by the USSC in a rare 9-0 decision:
"On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court validated this practice in a 9–0 ruling of using pro forma sessions to block the president from using the recess appointment authority."
Unless 0bama nominates a truly, strict Constitutionalist as the nominee, the seat will remain unfilled until next year.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Feb 15 at 2016 12:48 PM

2016-02-15T12:48:51-05:00

Being childish is something that our politicians should be above.
But sadly they only look out for their own benefits.
I get it that opposing parties are supposed to haggle and wrangle with decisions that affect the people, but there is always a compromise which should be met to get the best out of a situation.
We constantly see how our politicians switch sides on issues and never seem able to get anything accomplished.
Some of our leaders have seen first hand how bad things are for service members, retirees and other veterans and the families, yet what do they do? Not a frigging thing except to point fingers at each other or they write a bill and every other person has to add an amendment to the bill in order to support it, its totally disgusting.
Politicians should consider the welfare of the American people who voted them into office instead of the lobbyists who fill their bank accounts.
This Supreme Court nomination is going to me more of the same, President Obama is going to nominate someone he knows damn well is going to get the Republican controlled Senate in an uproar and then he will just go on TV and say "see they are just opposing me because they don't want to do something", and of course the Democratic minority will sing that song as well and the Republicans will do exactly as the President says they will.
Do we honestly need all this childish behavior from our leaders?

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Feb 15 at 2016 1:49 PM

2016-02-15T13:49:40-05:00

The title is a little misleading, but the core of it is correct. As a Senator, Obama DID support a filibuster on a nominee. What is not mentioned in either the link posted or on the ABC link that follows, is whether or not it happened in an election year. It shouldn't matter honestly, but that seems to be something republicans want to hold until the next president is elected. It's a rather dangerous gamble to me. Should the republicans NOT win the White House, the argument could be made they'd run the risk of loosing majority in the two houses....that is a REAL possibility. So you have to ask...which one gives the better ROI? SCOTUS only takes so many cases a year, so you can't really forecast what they'll take and what they won't. If you loose both chambers of congress, to me that is a more immediate and damning proposition. It's not like the current congress has been known to do a lot as it is. Personally I'd rather let the SCOTUS go, keep control of the congress and wait. Ginsberg is not a young lady, and while I do not wish her ill, but the clock is ticking. You could "win" by "loosing". I think McConnell is thinking short term show of force, and not looking past the immediate battle. Democrats would end up crushing them later on.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 2:30 PM

2016-02-15T14:30:04-05:00

It certainly is. But the death of Justice Scalia is an immense loss to the court. His brilliant and unequalled legal wisdom and 'Originalism,' to which I was in devout agreement, can and will never be replaced, not even if Congress replaced him with a thousand so-called qualified judicial scholars. I, myself, feel a void that is both personal and judicial, for I have followed the SCOTUS my entire adult and academic life. I shall miss this man terribly.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Feb 15 at 2016 2:51 PM

2016-02-15T14:51:15-05:00

It has become a political game. Elections have consequences and the Constitution is designed with checks and balances. One of those is that it takes both the President and the Senate to approve the justices. So in 2014 when Republicans won control of the Senate, that should have consequences for whom the President nominates. My hope and prayer is that he will nominate someone who at least is moderate in his or her views. Picking a far left justice will only go further divide this nation.

Response by LTC David Brown made Feb 15 at 2016 5:09 PM

2016-02-15T17:09:49-05:00

Chuck Schumer said Bush should not be allowed to make a Supreme Court appointment in 2007 before the general election.

Response by SFC Tyrone Almendarez made Feb 15 at 2016 5:36 PM

2016-02-15T17:36:01-05:00

It's a win win for democrats...you lose.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Feb 15 at 2016 6:13 PM

2016-02-15T18:13:21-05:00

As I understand it, this is covered by current Political Dogma (i.e. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true). In this case what is appropriate behavior for a Liberal Progressive (Obama) is a near criminal offence when done by a real Conservative (unfortunately, I can't think of any real conservatives in today's Senate).

My guess is that no matter who the President nominates to the Supreme Court, the Republican Senate will scream and holler about how partisan he or she is. Then they will promptly approve the nominee by one vote, all the while screaming about how unfair it is (to be a RINO).

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 15 at 2016 7:12 PM

2016-02-15T19:12:47-05:00

If we nominated and approved justices based solely on judicial competence instead of political ideology there would be no problem.

Pick the best qualified.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Feb 15 at 2016 8:53 PM

2016-02-15T20:53:48-05:00

What is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander CPT Jack Durish. I for one am glad that the Senate did not reduce the number below 60 senators to be required to vote for a US Supreme Court justice.
I hope the Senate will ensure that only somebody who has a long-standing judicial record which meets the standards of the Senate super majority is elected to fill this vacancy. I hope this will not happen until after the next President and Congress are sworn in next January. Hopefully the vacancy will be filled by spring 2017 after a full senate hearing with sufficient questions and debate.
It is still sobering for me to see an official portrait of the SCOTUS which includes Associate Justice Antonin Scalia who was the longest serving member of teh current court.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Feb 15 at 2016 9:46 PM

2016-02-15T21:46:13-05:00

Filibuster aside it still takes a super-majority (60) to approve an Appointment to the Supreme Court. There are Currently 54 Republicans in the Senate. 14 would have to cross party lines to approve any nomination.

Response by SGT Dana Williams made Feb 15 at 2016 10:15 PM

2016-02-15T22:15:46-05:00

He has a tendency to "do as I say, not as I do". Quid pro quo!

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Feb 15 at 2016 11:34 PM

2016-02-15T23:34:22-05:00

So let me get this straight, your taking a story from a unknown bias political website and calling it true... umm.. ok.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 2:07 AM

2016-02-16T02:07:21-05:00

Why don't you ask Mitch McConnell circa 1988 when he voted to confirm a Reagan appointee during the President's final year in office, or circa 2005:

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

And this:

"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's ‘advise and consent' responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.'"

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 3:27 AM

2016-02-16T03:27:11-05:00

Response by Alan K. made Feb 16 at 2016 4:58 PM

2016-02-16T16:58:06-05:00

You almost want to make some popcorn and sit back and watch.......Hollywood couldn't come up with anything better, that's for sure. Seriously this should be something to watch unfold.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2016 2:10 PM

2016-02-17T14:10:22-05:00

Anyone want to guess who said the following?

“There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.”