U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet is demanding that a political president and politicians in Congress not play politics when confirming a new Supreme Court judge to a bench filled with political appointments.
“The Senate should fulfill its Constitutional obligation without letting partisan politics intervene,” Bennet said in a written statement provided to 9NEWS. “When the President nominates someone, that person should get a full and fair review.”
Like the fair hearing Clarence Thomas received from Democrats? Or the refusal by Democrats to vote on several of President George W. Bush’s federal court nominees.
Or, how about when Senate-leader-in-waiting Chuck Schumer said Democrats should not allow Bush to make any more Supreme Court appointments except in the most dire of circumstances, because the judges would be conservative?
That kind of fairness?
We expect the eventual nominee will get a full and fair review in the vetting and hearing process, while the Democrats and Bennet are screaming that by “full review,” they meant 10 minutes.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner is calling for the appointment to be delayed until after the election, so that voters have a say in the process.
“This is the President’s opportunity to put what’s best for the country over politics, and act in a selfless and bipartisan manner.”
We agree with Gardner, and to the victor should go the spoils. The only thing to gain from moving forward during a presidential election year is to further divide the electorate, and Obama has already added that accomplishment to his bucket list.
Confirming a Supreme Court Justice is a lengthy process, and the only reason Democrats are stomping their feet and insisting on a rush job is they fear their party won’t be in the White House long enough to finish the job. As for Bennet, we suspect he won’t be there to finish the job, either.
Further..we can go back to the "Borking" in 1987, when Democrats ,based upon their left wing political beliefs, stiffed R Reagan's exremely well qualified nominee. That led to the followup nomination of Justice Kennedy in Nov 1987, with confirmation in Feb 2008. Now, remember, as an argument, that Kennedy was not NOMINATED in Reagan's last year in office.
Next.,Clarence Thomas and the dredging up of Anita Hill by Sens Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum to smear him.
In Sept 2005, voting against Roberts were H Clinton and Joe Biden.
In Jan 2006 (I was there for part of the Judiciary commitee hearings), all Democrats on the Judiciary committee voted against letting the nomination of Sam Alito go to the full Senate. In that full Senate process, a Dem filibuster was launched, participated in and supported by (and later they voted against Alito) John Kerry, Hilllary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid.
Didn't Senator Obama, in 2006-2007 join in efforts to filibuster President Bush's SCOTUS Nominee Samuel Alito?? And didn't he vote againse Justice Roberts despite praising him for his many qualifications? (https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261834/obama-filibustered-justice-alito-voted-against-daniel-greenfield)
And didn't Senator Chuck Schumer voice that Democrats in 2006-2007 Should NOT confirm ANY Supreme Court Nominees in the last 18 months of Bush's presidency…for no other reason than PARTISAN POLITICS?? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8)
Yes, Yes and YES…Senator Obama & Senator Schumers votes and their stance was strictly PARTISAN POLITICS…and now Obama wants Republicans to do the exact opposite and confirm his Lame Duck Presidential Supreme Court Nominees, and leave out partisanship? Double Standard Much?
Absolutely there is a double standard here, and I think Republicans should have NONE of it. I think that if/when Obama presents a nominee, as is his Constitutional duty (there is no denying the president has authority to nominate someone, in Article 2), Republicans should review that nominee and if they see ANY reason to do so, they should REJECT that nominee and let whomever the People Elect as our Next President, to nominate Scalia's replacement