Ronald Reagan Once Urged Senate To Act On Lame-Duck Supreme Court Nomination Of Anthony Kennedy The Gipper called for "prompt hearings conducted in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship." Ronald Reagan almost appears to be speaking from beyond the grave to Republicans vowing to block any Supreme Court nominee submitted by President Barack Obama. In this clip from C-SPAN, the Gipper urges the Democrat-controlled Senate to confirm Anthony Kennedy, who he nominated to the Supreme Court late in 1987. Kennedy was ultimately confirmed in February 1988 by a 97-0 vote. At the time, Reagan called on all Americans to "join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the United States Supreme Court to full strength." He also asked the Senate for "prompt hearings conducted in the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship." Unlike today's Republicans, the chair of the Senate judiciary committee did not threaten to block the nomination nor urge Reagan to leave the seat vacant for the next president to fill. "I'm glad the president has made his choice," said then-Sen. Joe Biden, according to a report in The New York Times from Nov. 12, 1987. "We will get the process under way and move as rapidly as is prudent. We want to conduct the committee's review with both thoroughness and dispatch.'"
Odumbo defers to the Constitution when it supports his desires (like right now in the Scalia replacement). And though he has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, says, "it's just a piece of paper" when it doesn't. As eloquently spoken by Comanche chief Ten Bears, "Washington is chiefed by the double-tongue". As true today as in his time.
Here you go Scato , especially for you , for life. Why Obama Should Nominate Barack Obama For The Supreme Court Vacancy The solution to this political problem is staring at him in the mirror. WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans have insisted that no matter who President Barack Obama nominates for the Supreme Court, there will be no hearings, no votes, no nothing. But there may be one potential candidate that Republicans would have a hard time blocking: Obama could appoint constitutional law professor Barack Obama. There's roughly a zero percent chance this'll happen, but here's why it makes sense: Appointing Obama would put the GOP in the position they've desperately wanted to be in since the man was inaugurated. They'd have the chance to vote him out of office. If he's truly as dangerous and illegitimate a president as Republicans say, then this is their opportunity to get him out of the White House by putting him on the court. The move would also give Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell a chance to virtually guarantee that he remains Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (McConnell would have to persuade his colleagues not to filibuster.) Some of the most vulnerable Republicans would have their 2016 chances boosted by voting to confirm Obama. Sens. Pat Toomey (Pa.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) would be assured re-election if they could peel off a small portion of Democratic voters grateful for the bipartisan move. With those four alone, Democrats would have 50 votes, a tie that could be broken by Vice President Joe Biden -- who would be all too pleased to cast the deciding vote to make himself president, even if he'd become one of the shortest-serving presidents in history. And Biden, of course, would then name his longtime ally and Senate successor Ted Kaufman as vice president. If Biden happened to meet the same sudden fate as Antonin Scalia did, Kaufman could quickly go about the business of breaking up the banks. White House aide Eric Schultz, asked if Obama had considered nominating Obama, noted that the president "has said he's not interested in being a Supreme Court justice," citing a New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin and a recent interview on Ellen. Sure, Obama may have said that, but what if the president himself called on him to serve? Wouldn't that change his thinking?
From Mark Levin, who has forgotten more about the constitution then Obama will or has ever known: Yesterday: "Nothing in the Constitution, constitutional convention or ratification debates demands that Congress bring up a judicial nomination. However, President Obama is in a rush to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia with a radical leftist and is trying to pack the court on his way out the door. Senate Republicans need to stop Obama from doing this and need to be more forceful in their opposition. Right now, Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley are giving passive opposition to Obama. These senators are part of the same crowd that forfeited Congress’s power of the purse and power to make Treaties to the executive branch."
I agree it's very important, but the republicans need to come up with something better than we don't want to. There's also something to consider. There's nothing in the constitution that demands a conservative or left leaning justice be replaced with like in kind. People talk about the balance of power shifting. There isn't supposed to be any balance of political power on the court. They vote how they vote according to their interpretation of the laws and our constitution, and should do so with an open mind to hear the argument of the opposition. Yeah I know, silly to even think that possible. Too many people are nibbling around the sandwich called socialism. Maybe a nice big bite is just what this country needs to feel the full effect of this failed ideology. Perhaps the only way out of this political quagmire we're in will be a hard kick to the nuts. A hard shift to the left just might do the trick.
"The Constitution Does Not Require the Senate to Vote on a Nomination" http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-c...enate-to-vote-on-a-nomination/article/2001087 From the linked article "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." It could not be simpler. The president nominates someone. If the Senate gives its advice and consent, then the president can appoint him. But nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate is required to act on the president's nominations. The Framers certainly didn't understand the Senate to bear such an obligation. And the Framers who drafted that document certainly didn't say that the Senate bore such an obligation. That is a point I offered once in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Writing amidst the war over President Bush's judicial nominations, I looked at the founding debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the ratification debates that followed, and found no indication of any expectation that the Senate would be required the vote on a President's nominees..."
I was wondering about that also. The thing I will find really funny is when Obama and Reid start talking about cooperation. How many times has Obama taunted Rs when they had control of the Senate... and Reid... he was a monster of a jerk.