Libs DEMAND Obama Get Supreme Court Nominee … History And Facts Have Them Running For Cover

schumer

The dual-high-beams of history and The Constitution are shining brightly on liberals and like rats on the kitchen floor, they’re running for cover.

[widget:text-]


The unexpected death of Antonin Scalia creates an opening on the Supreme Court that Obama is desperate to fill with a leftist, but with only 11 months left in his lame-duck presidency, conservatives say the next president, not Barack Obama, should be able to fill that vacancy.

Democrats are claiming two things that are provably false about the vacancy and what the Constitution says about it.

Their first argument is that, somehow, the Congress is required to hold a vote within some timeframe on an Obama appointee. A surface reading of the founding document shows no element of time whatsoever.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.”

There’s no requirement that the Senate do anything, let alone within any given timeframe.


That doesn’t stop liberals from screaming about obstructionism!

“You know, the kind of obstructionism that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s talking about, he’s hearkening back to his old days,” Schumer said, according to The Hill. “In 2010, right after the election or right during the election, he said, ‘My number-one job is to defeat Barack Obama,’ without even knowing what Barack Obama was going to propose. Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, ‘No, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to leave the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.’”

“Let him show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president’s only president for three years,” he said. “Does this mean we don’t hold hearings on anything? The president shouldn’t nominate cabinet ministers?”

Schumer insists we “go forward with the process” and “let’s see what happened.”

“This kind of Obstructionism isn’t going to last and you know,” he said. “We Democrats didn’t do this. We voted 97-0 for Justice Kennedy in the last year of Reagan’s term.”

Of course, this is total nonsense. Here’s Schumer in 2007 recommending exactly what he’s decrying now: Obstructionism.

“I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

On the other side, Republicans were livid that Schumer would dare try to block any possible George W. Bush nominee. While none came up in his final year in office, Bush’s press secretary at the time said Schumer showed a “tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” and his comments amounted to “blind obstructionism,” Dana Perino said.



Robert Gehl

About Robert Gehl

Robert Gehl is a college professor in Phoenix, Arizona. He has over 15 years journalism experience, including two Associated Press awards. He lives in Glendale with his wife and two young children.

Comments