Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Not working, not winning
Next Post: What a coinkydink
Posted in:
* From US Sen. Mark Kirk…
Antonin Scalia was a giant in the history of American jurisprudence. His legacy and contribution to our nation will long endure. The political debate erupting about prospective nominees to fill the vacancy is unseemly, let us take the time to honor his life before the inevitable debate erupts.
* Tribune…
Contacted by the Tribune, Kirk’s campaign pointed to a statement the senator issued Monday that avoided taking a stand on the question of Scalia’s successor and described the political maneuvering as “unseemly” at this time.
Kirk’s statement called Scalia a “giant in the history of American jurisprudence” and said the public should “take the time to honor his life before the inevitable debate erupts.”
But the debate has already erupted, and Kirk is a key target of politicking on both sides. He already faces the difficult task of winning a second term as a Republican in a state that in recent presidential election years has sided with Democrats.
* The react…
February 14, 2016
Statement by Bernard Cherkasov, CEO, Equality Illinois
Equality Illinois offers condolences to the family of Justice Scalia and to his colleagues on the United States Supreme Court.
With the Court’s work too important to go without a ninth member, President Obama should promptly nominate a successor. We trust that Sen. Dick Durbin and Sen. Mark Kirk will give the nominee due consideration and decide whether to confirm based on the best interests of the people of Illinois and the United States.
Already, the Senate Majority Leader, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, and several of Sen. Kirk’s Republican colleagues have called for a delay of nearly a year until the new president can nominate Justice Scalia’s successor. This is an abuse of power and contrary to the United States Constitution and American history. We hope Sen. Kirk accepts that it is President Obama’s constitutional authority and responsibility to fill the vacancy.
Sen. Kirk will be under tremendous pressure from his colleagues to automatically reject the President’s nominee. Yet, Sen. Kirk has demonstrated a thoughtful willingness to work in a bipartisan manner on important issues, including the Equality Act to prohibit discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans and his support for marriage equality. This is the Mark Kirk that we hope will be part of the confirmation process for President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
* Tammy Duckworth…
“I am deeply disappointed in Senator McConnell’s pronouncement that the Senate will refuse to perform its Constitutional role of advice and consent regarding any Supreme Court nominee President Obama rightfully and dutifully sends its way. Three years ago, and for more than 20 years before that as an Army officer, I swore and continue to abide by an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath seriously. It does not cease to apply in an election year, nor does it cease to exist for the benefit of a political party that lost the last Presidential election and wishes to impose a procedural do-over.
“Senator Mark Kirk must immediately level with the people of Illinois, and let us know whether he supports the Constitution, or if he’ll be a rubber stamp for Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist and unconstitutional gambit.” — Tammy Duckworth
* Andrea Zopp…
“Senator Kirk needs to fulfill his constitutional duty. This is not the time to ‘non-comment.’ It is time to take a position. That’s why we have the gridlock we have in Washington and that’s why we desperately need change.”
“I have been studying, interpreting, and advocating for people under the law for decades,” said Zopp who after graduating from Harvard Law, clerked for a judge, and was a prosecutor for over 13 years. “No one in this primary has experience that comes close. If the Senate Republicans get their way and obstruct the President’s appointment, we need a Senator who knows the law and can advocate for a well-deserved candidate. I am the only one in this race that can be that Senator.”
* Kirk, however, is not alone…
Senate Republicans are going all in behind Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s strategy of spurning a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia until next year. Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania became the latest incumbents from states that President Barack Obama has won to throw in with their leader to bar a new Supreme Court justice, joining Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Mavericks like John McCain are in the same boat, as are senators with no reelection considerations at all, like Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana. Meanwhile, of course, Democrats are predicting that the GOP will lose the Senate over this.
Story Continued BelowTwo polite dissenters: Two of the most moderate Senate Republicans are criticizing both parties on the SCOTUS politicking. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois joined Sen. Susan Collins in this position on Monday, with Kirk releasing a statement saying: “The political debate erupting about prospective nominees to fill the vacancy is unseemly, let us take the time to honor his life before the inevitable debate erupts.”
My own opinion is that Kirk is right. It is horribly unseemly that such a fight would break out moments after Justice Scalia’s death was announced. There’s no need to rush here, even if the media and the Democrats are jumping up and down demanding statements.
Take a breath already.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Not working, not winning
Next Post: What a coinkydink
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Agreed. Kirk is taking the high road, and good for him.
OTOH, he’s kind of in a major political pickle with this one. No good choices for him: stand with the GOP and be an obstructionist and defy the Constitution, or buck his party and embrace the Independent character he pretends to be every election season. Tough choice, but unfortunately for Kirk, he won’t be able to hide for long.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:19 am
If my party thinks this is like shutting down the gov’t by not even giving an “up or down” on a SCOTUS nominee, Nov. will be brutal.
When your party can’t find a real, legal, viable way to explain holding up a nomination except politics. This might not end well in November.
Running the 2016 POTUS campaign as a referendum on SCOTUS with Scalia as the seat, can the GOP hold on for 330+ days of obstruction?
Sen. Kirk is Spot On with this. The obstruction will destroy the GOP. Gotta give an “up or down”. If the National GOP try to stonewall consideration, even more I think on this, it will lead to huge loses in November. Vote the nominee down, find a consensus as its framed in the Constitution, or be seen in the worst governing light, and… make 2016 about Obama all over again.
It’s like watching novices in this GOP leadership, reckless and short-sided in thinking.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:21 am
The “media and the Democrats are jumping up and down demanding statements” because McConnell has forced the issue.
Comment by Wildcat D Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:23 am
What Wildcat said. The debate “erupted” when Mitch McConnell announced, hours after Scalia’s death, that the Senate would not consider any nominee put forth by President Obama.
Comment by Snucka Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:26 am
What Wildcat D said - and much of the media is buying into the ‘wait until next President’ already
Comment by doofusguy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:27 am
If it goes to an up down vote- Kirk could easily go against McConnell and the nominee is still blocked. However, he would still lose the argument as TD and IL media would focus on the republican blockade- not kirks departure from it. See TD’s digital campaigns on Planned Parenthood for insight on how this could play out.
Comment by Cousin Vinny Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:28 am
Less than an hour after Justice Scalia’s death was announced, and before any talk of appointing anyone, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that the Senate would block any attempt at an Obama appointment during the remaining 11 months of his presidency. Unseemly indeed.
Comment by Young State Worker Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:28 am
You would think all this screaming on both sides would stop until after Justice Scalia’s funeral.
I agree that Senator Kirk has taken the right position on this matter. Sadly, there are just too many squirrels in both major political parties these days.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:29 am
–Take a breath already.–
Too late. The Senate Majority Leader chose to play to partisan Obama Derangement Syndrome within one hour of learning of Scalia’s death.
–Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election — an historic rebuke of President Obama’s authority and an extraordinary challenge to the practice of considering each nominee on his or her individual merits.
The swiftness of McConnell’s statement — coming about an hour after Scalia’s death in Texas had been confirmed — stunned White House officials who had expected the Kentucky Republican to block their nominee with every tool at his disposal, but didn’t imagine the combative GOP leader would issue an instant, categorical rejection of anyone Obama chose to nominate.
“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,” McConnell said, at a time when other elected officials, from Sen. Bernie Sanders to future Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, were releasing statements offering condolences to the justice’s family, which includes 26 grandchildren.–
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:32 am
===You would think all this screaming on both sides would stop===
You think both side are to blame? Interesting. The Democrats are responding to the lies and misinformation being spread almost immediately from Sen. McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and a host of other Constitutional absurdists.
Don’t play the “both sides are guilty” card every time Louis. Be proud of your party and the courageous stands it takes. And in this case, desecrating the memory of Justice Scalia to score cheap political points.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:33 am
The only statements that have been made have been either…
A. The President has the Constitutional authority and obligation to nominate a replacement (See Constitution)…
or
B. We must prevent the President from filling the Supreme Court (ignoring the Constitution and damaging 1/3 of the Federal Government based on an ideological dislike for the person who has the power to nominate a replacement) [Ironically, something that is against the original reading of the Constitution; something Justice Scalia based many of his decisions upon].
This is an issue that has been raised by the people opposed to a nominee being put forth, and the people in that party should be ready and willing to go on the record as to whether they agree. Like it or not, all Senate races are going to have this as an issue.
Comment by Dilemma Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:34 am
“let us take the time to honor his life before the inevitable debate erupts.”
Unfortunately, thanks to the leaders of Kirk’s party, it’s too late. It’s not just McConnell. Charles Grassley, chair of the Judiciary Committee, said within a couple of hours of Scalia’s death that no nomination should be made until the next president’s term.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:34 am
===You think both side are to blame? Interesting. The Democrats are responding to===
They coulda all been more like Kirk and just said we should at least allow the body to get cold before fighting over his carcass.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:37 am
McConnell- the first vulture at the funeral.
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:37 am
Kirk is right it’s only appropriate to wait a few weeks to let the man’s family and friends grieve without a circus going on.
To be honest either party would be doing the same thing right now. To pretend your party would not is the height of hypocrisy. See Chuck Schumer in 2007 19 months before Bush left office.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/02/16/chuck-schumer-supreme-court-nomination-president-sot-erin.cnn
That said Willy is right the smart play is to allow the president to put forth a nominee and vote down any nominee the party finds unagreeable. However I don’t think common sense applies anymore.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:38 am
Sen. McConnell in 2005:
“It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high…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.”
“Let’s get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president’s nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who’s in control of the Senate. That’s the way we need to operate.”
Sen. McConnell in 2016:
“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.”
Sen. Schumer in 2007:
“With the respect to the Supreme Court at least I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances.”
Sen. Schumer in 2015:
“[Sen. McConnell] doesn’t even know who the president is going to propose. And he says, ‘No, we’re not having hearings, we’re not going to go forward.’ [Leaving] the Supreme Court vacant for 300 days in a divided time? This kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last…The American people don’t like this obstructionism.”
Gosh, it’s almost as though their opinions change based on partisanship.
Comment by thunderspirit Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:41 am
1. The body wasn’t even cold before the politicin’ began. Indecent and sad.
2. I would so like to vote Republican. Their actions and rhetoric make it SO hard.
Comment by Diogenes in DuPage Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:43 am
Kirk was correct here. And the Republican presidential candidates deeply disappointed me by their tone during the debate.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:43 am
Some fights “break out” and others are started.
As Wordslinger documented, this regretful fight was started.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:44 am
@47th Ward: ===”Be proud of your party and the courageous stands it takes. And in this case, desecrating the memory of Justice Scalia to score cheap political points.”===
Good grief! Where did that one come from?
According to some squirrels calling themselves Democrats, Obama appoints and the Senate must automatically confirm. According to to some squirrels calling themselves Republicans, Obama would violate the Constitution if he appoints someone as a lame duck president or during an election year.
My position remains: The US Constitution calls for the President to nominate someone for that position, and then that nomination is either confirmed or rejected by the US Senate.
All the squirrels from both parties disagree with me. There is no worse sound on this planet than a screaming political squirrel.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:45 am
No need to be seen as someone inhibiting progress here. Let Obama nominate someone, then use every available step along the confirmation process to slow walk his nominee throughout 2016.
The only person in a hurry here is Obama. He’s a lame duck. Scalia’s death shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity to nominate someone 180 degree different from him. What Democrats have been concerned about has been Ginsberg’s health. She is a reliable liberal seen as knocking on death’s door. Liberals have been shoving her through it, against her will. They want to keep the liberal seat.
Since it looks like she will outlive Obama’s administration, and kick off during the next president’s term, Democrats want Obama to use the open seat to put into place Ginsburg’s replacement.
The politics has been played here for over two years since Ginsburg announced her cancer. Scalia’s death was unexpected, but the politics here has been read to pop for a long time. That is why it is a hot topic now.
Kirk is right. The GOP shouldn’t look like obstructionists. Kirk doesn’t need this situation to help his political opponent, whoever she ends up being.
Duckworth needed to have backed away too, but she isn’t that sharp. Just as it looks bad for Republicans to look like obstructionists, it looks bad for Democrats to look like opportunists.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:46 am
===There’s no need to rush here, even if the media and the Democrats are jumping up and down demanding statements.===
The only reason I disagree is because everyone regardless of party should have thought, “we have a constitutional obligation to at least give the president’s appointee a fair hearing” and then they should have said it, even if they were going to scuttle that person. And good luck trying to scuttle a person they have already unanimously confirmed to the lower courts.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:48 am
Kirk is right.
Everyone should take a breath and pause and give the man his legacy (which heck, could be positive -or- negative, he’s a public man, Scalia could certainly take it in life, he can take it in death) before launching into the succession politics.
So Kirk is right (and Obama is right). We should take a week here, chill out. Plenty of time ahead.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:50 am
===and the Senate must automatically confirm===
You’re making that up. Citation? Nobody credible is saying anyone Obama nominates must be confirmed. On the other hand, you have Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Rubio, Grassley and others who almost instantly jumped into the fray and took to the airwaves to spread a false idea that a President in his last year of a last term should not do his job.
Both sides aren’t doing it in this case my friend. Only yours. I suggest you embrace it and own it, because we know you can’t defend it.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:50 am
Kirk is taking the high road, but he should be prepared to take a position a day or so after the funeral.
To be reelected in Illinois, he should support the nomination of a new judge. He does NOT have to support the nominee, but he should not support delaying the appointment.
Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:51 am
“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>: - Sen.Mitch McConnell, February 13, 2016.
Barack H. Obama 65,918,507
Willard Mitt Romney 60,934,407
Comment by And I Approved This Message Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:52 am
===The only person in a hurry here is Obama.===
Don’t forget the plaintiffs and defendants who want justice.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:52 am
Please Rich,
There is nothing particularly seemly about it.
Kirk is being more “respectful” to the dearly departed ONLY because he is in a political pickle. Sheesh. And how long of a “decent interval” do you suppose would be most seemly?
Whatever. Let’s stick to the substance and spare everyone the crocodile tears about a judicial crank who could only barely concealed his partisanship behind the microfiber-thin veil of a crack pot theory. In key cases like Bush v. Gore, he cast off the veil entirely to help elect a man so incompetent he destroyed all respect for American leadership in the world AND the economy. (Much as I loath Trump, he is the only public figure with the guts to acknowledge this openly.)
Let’s play a game: name a case in which Scalia disappointed conservatives through principled adherence to his “original meaning” theory. I’ll be waiting.
Comment by History Prof Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:52 am
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Courtr justice. Therefore this vacancy shouldnot befilled until we have a new President/”
Comment by And I Approved This Message Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:54 am
=== ONLY because he is in a political pickle===
But he’s still right.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:00 am
Sorry for the misfire above
“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, February 13, 2016
Barack H. Obama 65,918,507
Willard Mitt Romney 60,934,407
Popular vote totals , 2012 Presidential Election, November 6, 2012
The people HAVE had a voice in this matter Senator McConnell.
Comment by And I Approved This Message Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:00 am
National politics drive me crazy.
There will be gridlock. President Obama will appoint someone and the Senate will not concur.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:06 am
Tammy keeps demonstrating how she will act if elected to Senate: blind partisanship and DSCC-approved press releases.
Comment by NIU Grad Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:07 am
Better headline;
Kirk and Obama are right on this one.
Comment by Niblets Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:07 am
Ah, CapFax’s comment board - Where the chief executive should always get his way.
Comment by JB13 Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:11 am
Sen. Kirk is right, but irrelevant. The responses from his fellow Republican Senate colleagues and presidential candidates immediately drowned his comments in a tidal wave of id-fueled hypocrisy. Democrats and residents are thus right to demand answers from Sen. Kirk sooner rather than later.
There is no equivalence here.
The Republicans, who have never accepted Obama’s presidential legitimacy, are demanding he abrogate his Constitutional duties 11 months before he leaves office. (Funny, considering the man they’re simultaneously eulogizing.)
President Obama says no, and Democrats are simply demanding the Senate fulfill its duty under the Constitution.
One of these does not look like the other.
Comment by Northsider Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:12 am
Antonin Scalia R.I.P. He served his country to the best of his abilities.
Let’s at least get through the funeral before having the crazy relatives battle over the estate.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:13 am
Reality?
How can the GOP holdup a…
Supreme Court Nominee from a vote, or consideration, or hearings, for 11 months?
Not 11 weeks, 11 months.
If the national GOP make this POTUS race another referendum on Obama? Ugh.
So the obstruction of a Nominee that will never be as conservative as Scalia, for the politics of a Democratic President replacing a right-leaning juris, while needing confirmation… and framing it as “stopping Obama” again?
The GOP, and Kirk, will face a backlash in states that are purple or in Kirk’s case, “purple-Obama blue”…
Find a way to work around trying youget a Nominee left of Scalia, but farther right than Bader Ginsberg, have an “up and down”, and try to get past the politics.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:19 am
Elections have consequences including midterms. The President can appoint the Senate can reject or approve. McConnell was foolish to make a stupid statement. What he should have said is exactly what Kirk said. Respectfully keep your trap shut.
The Republicans have 54 seats enough to reject anyone they whish no reason to be incendiary especially before the manhas even been laid to rest.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:23 am
“Find a way to work around, trying to get a Nominee left of Scalia, but farther right than Bader Ginsberg, have an “up and down”, and try to get past the politics.”
Apologies.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:26 am
This reveals to me how much of the Republican strategy rested in 5-4 majority decisions of the Supreme Court. This eviscerates their whole strategy it seems. No wonder they lost it when Scalia died.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:26 am
Northside’s got it right but the dispute is really irrelevant. President Obama is going to nominate someone and the Republicans in the Senate are going to have to respond in some way even if that means they stall for many months. Senator Kirk will be part of that response.
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:29 am
Sure Kirk is right.
Unfortunately Decorum was tied down and sacrificed on the alter of politics long ago.
Kirk’s statement now appears to be self serving and an attempt to buy some breathing room before he has to commit to which lane he will drive in.
In my neighborhood once one dog howls most all the rest pick it up.
Comment by Bemused Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:34 am
CommandoMakeItUp probably toast anyway, but it will be fun to see him squirm and try to force McConnell to backflip. Guessin’ this issue will give some wobbly Ds and Indies reason to vote. Thanks Mitch!
BTW how many days of the fawning tributes to Scalia does American need? Most of his great ideas were contained in dissents — which is the losin’ side Let’s move on
Comment by Annonn'' Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:35 am
All trips with RBG to the opera aside, Scalia was a partisan ideological justice whose “originalism” and “textualism” approach was most often just the academic sheen he used to cloak his conservative activism from the bench.
A partisan firestorm erupting immediately upon Scalia’s death does not dishonor him. It is his legacy that no longer anyone pretends the courts are anything but another political branch of government.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:38 am
This devolved into a rejected West Wing script really fast.
How will the 4-4 Court rule on President-Elect Cruz’s citizenship?
Season 8 was always going to be a stretch.
Comment by LizPhairTax Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:44 am
= This reveals to me how much of the Republican strategy rested in 5-4 majority decisions of the Supreme Court. This eviscerates their whole strategy it seems. No wonder they lost it when Scalia died. =
Public-sector union fair-share fees are likely to survive, as the Friedrichs case looks destined for a 4-4 vote. No react yet from the Rauner administration?
Comment by cover Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:44 am
Cover- exactly! 4-4 spit means the lower court decision stands which was against Friedricks.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:48 am
So let the Republicans obstruct. They’ll pay for it in Nov.
Then Bernie…or Hilary can nominate Obama…who will be confirmed.
The Republicans will not win this…and will have to face the consequences for years to come.
Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:50 am
Mitch McConnell started it.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:51 am
–Cover- exactly! 4-4 spit means the lower court decision stands which was against Friedricks.–
But it will not set precedent.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:55 am
Excellent analysis JB13; the commenters on this board are all for chief executives getting their way except for when they are against it. I anxiously await Madigan and Cullerton surrendering to Rauner.
Comment by Angry Republican Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:05 am
Deep - talk about getting ahead of yourself. I know that a social media hot topic, but: a) you assume one of them will win and b) you assume one of them would actually do it if one of them wins.
Mark Kirk may be in trouble, but it is entirely possible that the GOP keeps control of the Senate after this election.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:06 am
Kirk is mostly right. McConnell should have used some his moral outrage in a more restrained manner. Once he starts down that road the gloves are off and there is no need of the pretense of concern. Justice Scalia was certainly one of the most polarizing supreme court justices ever.
Comment by BaronvonHammer Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:10 am
The next session of the Supreme Court begins in October. If there is not a new Justice in place until February or March of 2017 (at the very earliest if forced to wait until a new President is in office), that will mean we have two years of US SC decisions without a full bench.
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:16 am
As an aside, why is no one in the media demanding to know who the other guests of Poindexter were? Based on the following news report, it sure sounds like a bunch of very, very wealthy GOP donors were hosting a judge who was supposed to be neutral, or at a minumum be able to adhere to an appearance of neutrality.
“Most of the other guests had been to the ranch before and were friends or longtime acquaintances of Poindexter, who has a home on the ranch and has been hosting winter weekend gatherings for 20 years.
Poindexter said he had met Scalia once before, briefly in Washington, when he was there with a sports group and the justice agreed to meet them. He said he invited Scalia to the ranch on the suggestion of a mutual friend, a lawyer, who came with Scalia.
He declined to identify the lawyer or any of the other guests, except to say that they were “very substantial business people,” but not big names in politics.
“There is no political angle here,” he said. “It was strictly a group of friends sympathetic to the justice’s views.”"
Comment by Dilemma Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:17 am
“Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that the Senate would block any attempt at an Obama appointment during the remaining 11 months of his presidency. Unseemly indeed.”
I agree. It’s very unseemly, and typical. It’s like a big final Republican obstruction at the end of President Obama’s term.
If this thing lingers into the election, it could help Democrats, whose voters disliked SCOTUS’ makeup with Scalia. There is an interest in getting rid of or overturning the Citizens United ruling.
It looks like fate and greed bit the Friedrichs plaintiffs and their supporters in the rear. Good. They wanted to get adverse rulings to quickly move the case to SCOTUS, where they thought they would prevail. Now it looks like the vote could be a 4-4 split, affirming the appellate court’s decision, until a new case comes forward. The lower court ruled in favor of unions.
SCOTUS could also vote for Friedrichs to be heard at another term, with a full court.
Either way, the unions got a huge break and may wind up winning this outright in the longer run.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:18 am
Sheesh just wait until after his funeral for goodness sake. Oh, I forgot there is no goodness in DC.
Comment by 13th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:22 am
Another example of how primary-season politics, where you appeal to your extreme base, works against good government.
The only responsible public position for Republicans is to concede that Obama has the right to nominate someone, and when he does, the Senate will then consider it on the merits.
But apparently some GOP consultants have told the people they advise to take an extreme position, and the advisees took the advice. GOP consultants have had their collective heads up their butts for a decade or more, which is why the GOP now has to deal with Donald Trump, but for whatever reason, the pols still listen to them.
So, yet again, the GOP “leadership” acts stupid.
Comment by Harry Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:29 am
–Excellent analysis JB13; the commenters on this board are all for chief executives getting their way except for when they are against it.–
Another victim heard from, another false argument.
It’s the Senate’s Constitutional prerogative to confirm or reject a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court.
I wonder what a Constitutional “originalist” like Scalia would have thought about McConnell’s theory of the Senate simply blowing off its Constitutional responsibility for nearly a year.
Doesn’t seem to be in the document anywhere.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:39 am
===a) you assume one of them will win and b) you assume one of them would actually do it if one of them wins.===
I assume one of them will win, yes…well, it is a pretty good bet right now. The GOP candidates seem to fall deeper into the abyss with each passing day. But still, a long way to go.
So, yes, you’re more on the mark on “B.” Nonetheless, a Dem wins the White House and makes an appointment, whoever it may be. Can a GOP senate obstruct forever? No, in the final analysis, Republicans will be facing their consequences of their actions for years to come.
Or President Trump will…oh my, I can’t believe I typed that!
Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:51 am
Mitch McConnell, durrr durrr, cracked the ice on this one before Scalia’s body was cold - almost literally. The discourse resides specifically and exclusively with him and his allies.
If Democratic leaders allowed those provocative anti-Constitutional statements to go unchallenged, they would run the risk of having those statements become the accepted narrative. That’s simply too big a risk. You don’t show up with empty hands when the other side is already using rocket propelled grenades.
While we’re at it, let’s not forget that Scalia was a Constitutional literalist. Even he would’ve said the President has the right to nominate and have that nomination be considered.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:57 am
With all the talk about precedence, I heard one law prof astutely suggest that there is no precedence for term limiting a president from 4 to 3 years. Particularly ironic given that Supreme Court judges are appointed for life and that Obama was elected. So, term limiting to the 50+ million who voted for him. Kind of undemocratic to say the least.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:57 am
I liked Scalia. I also like asking what the people who drafted and voted on the Constitution and its Amendments thought at the time. If we have changed enough, we can and have amended it.
The Republican leadership makes me feel like a Union soldier at Fredericksburg, my cause is just but my generals are fools.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 11:59 am
Not that it explains much, but the anon at 11:57 was me.
Comment by Vole Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:01 pm
===I wonder what a Constitutional “originalist” like Scalia would have thought about McConnell’s theory of the Senate simply blowing off its Constitutional responsibility for nearly a year.===
This is the framing how the National GOP will mess up, not only the SCOTUS appointment processes, but lose to “Obama” for a 3rd time because this obsessive idea that holding a Supreme Court nomination for 11 months is a winnjng strategy, even if it paralyzes the Court at 4-4, starting in the next Session with cases facing a split Court.
Holding back the procedural aspects of confirmation for 11 months would be disastrous to Mark Kirk and other GOP vulnerable seats, and give aid and comfort to Democratic targets, using “Obama” and obstruction for their retention.
Let the Predident of the United States nominate, let the United States Senate do their constitutional duty and both need to understand that any Designate will Left of Scalia, but the President would be very wise to have the Designate be farther Right from Ginsberg to get closer to 60 for closture, and then vote the Nominee “up or down”
Otherwise, yikes.
You can’t stall this 11 months, well, you CAN, but it’s a loser for everyone, including the United States.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:04 pm
I can certainly see how the Republicans would feel if President Obama were to nominate a William Douglas type or something.
But suppose he sends Sri Srinavasan up. The guy was unanimously confirmed to the DC Court of Appeal. By all accounts he’s done a very good job. How could the Republicans reasonably refuse?
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:09 pm
Was Scalia the last of Reagan’s appointments?
Comment by The courts Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:02 pm
I do understand questioning the appropriate nature of a lame duck presidential appointment to the Supreme court. If for no other reason than th at it would be interesting to see who the next president would appoint.
Comment by The courts Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:04 pm
@ Cover: “Public-sector union fair-share fees are likely to survive, as the Friedrichs case looks destined for a 4-4 vote. ”
Not necessarily. There’s a strong likelihood that any case looking like an even split will be re-argued after the new justice is seated.
See this commentary from SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/tie-votes-will-lead-to-reargument-not-affirmance/
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:12 pm
@4th Ward
The courts can function without that seat being filled. The court does not stop functioning when a seat is left empty. So the court will be just fine no matter how long It takes. After all remember that the court did not originally start with as many seats as exist today.
Comment by The courts Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:45 pm
===The courts can function without that seat being filled.===
I assume you were talking to me and not Will Burns. Of course the court can still function with 8 justices. Why do you think it should? Do you think Obama should not do his job because Mitch McConnell apparently doesn’t want to do his?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:47 pm
“You can’t stall this 11 months, well, you CAN, but it’s a loser for everyone, including the United States.”
It appears the national Tea Party-Republicans don’t care if everyone loses as long as they win.
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:52 pm
Keep in mind, it’s the political negatuve aspect of the vacancy, be it for 11 months, or over 8 months and the General Election weighing on such a partisan move.
It’s an absolute loser for Kirk, in Illinois, if Obama is being framed in a partisan match in a Presidential Election and Kirk is “seen” in the mix stymieing native son President Obama.
The politics of such a move of holding out 11 months could be devastating, politically, and the country is hurt by the vacancy because of the politics, the not vacant chair.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:12 pm
The hypocrisy of both parties is appalling and neither seem interested in the best interest of the country. Its all politics.
Comment by whitecollarretired Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:41 pm
Curious. Mentioned the same type of obstructionism by a Democrat and the post was deleted? It was not profane, and stated known facts. Must have broken some rule or irritated the blog owner.
Comment by whitecollarretired Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:45 pm
===irritated the blog owner. ===
My last feeble attempt to redirect the conversation back to the subject matter at hand.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:47 pm
The Republicans have no intention of confirming anyone until the new President takes over and will block any nominee for the Court.
And if the situation were reversed you can count on the Democrats doing he same thing.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:51 pm
The litmus test of all litmus tests. The 2nd amendment. Can you imagine Hillary(or Bernie) going into FLA,VA, Ohio and having to defend a US Supreme Court Nominee with a track record opposed to it? PA in November right before deer season? Michigan with its 1,000,000 deer hunters? Kirk should only be so lucky to get to take a vote before November.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:55 pm
Anyone concerned about Kirk’s future should pull a Dem ballot and vote for Zopp
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:57 pm
–The Republicans have no intention of confirming anyone until the new President takes over and will block any nominee for the Court.
And if the situation were reversed you can count on the Democrats doing he same thing.–
That would be news to Justice Kennedy, Pres. Reagan’s nominee, confirmed in the last year of Reagan’s last term in a Democratic-majority Senate, 97-0, on Feb. 11, 1988.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:00 pm
My apologies Rich, I did not mean to offend.
Comment by whitecollarretired Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:08 pm
I was noting the “outrage” at conservatives for wanting to block the Presidents nomination (any nomination) and was demonstrating that the liberals have done it also.
Comment by whitecollarretired Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:10 pm
–The litmus test of all litmus tests. The 2nd amendment. Can you imagine Hillary(or Bernie) going into FLA,VA, Ohio and having to defend a US Supreme Court Nominee with a track record opposed to it? PA in November right before deer season? Michigan with its 1,000,000 deer hunters? –
What does that even mean, “a track record opposed to the 2nd Amendment?”
Any judges that come to mind as being “opposed to the 2nd Amendment?”
Is there some secret judicial movement afoot to outlaw deer-hunting or something?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:13 pm
===I was noting the “outrage” at conservatives for wanting to block the Presidents nomination (any nomination) and was demonstrating that the liberals have done it also.===
Example?
And make sure your example includes the premise of the “Liberal” majority running the Senate announces it will block the unnamed nominee, and the time frame and outcome of this example.
Thank you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:18 pm
The only difference between Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell is that Mitch already has the position. Otherwise, it’s the same political nonsense bluster about something that should not be said but which everyone knows. Lost Kevin the Speaker’s job, should lose Mitch the respect of everyone. Of course the Republicans are going to do that. And of course the President will fulfill his responsibility. Why can’t they think of poor RBG and the loss of her friend? Bury him then have at it.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:27 pm
I see Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has called for the president’s nominee to get a hearing. Mark Kirk? Well, he’s lost his opportunity to lead on this issue . . .
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:30 pm
@ 4th Ward, yes that was directed to you. And no I do not think the constitutional duties of the president should be ignored. (Even though he seems to do it all the time), but I would argue that of the Republican congress does not wish to fill the seat all they have to do is reduce the number of justices seated by 1 seat. After all nothing in the Constitution says they cannot do so. Also read the language again it says the president shall have the power to do this not he will do this with the power afforded him. Essentially he has a choice and so does the Congress especially the Senate. That’s not a defense it’s an explanation of constitutional wording structure. In other words there are several other options on the table.
Comment by The courts Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 4:29 pm
===I would argue that of the Republican congress does not wish to fill the seat all they have to do is reduce the number of justices seated by 1 seat. After all nothing in the Constitution says they cannot do so. Also read the language again…===
When you want to get out of the Dorm Room… Join us in the real world.
Do not feed trolls…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 4:36 pm
===Also read the language again it says the president shall have the power to do this not he will do this with the power afforded him.===
You and Louis must be hearing the same voices in your head, because no one is arguing that Obama should get his way and his pick must be approved. Please stop using that straw man, it’s been demolished several times already.
It is entirely possible that Obama will nominate a jurist who is so liberal and/or unqualified that the Senate will reject it. Fine. But vowing to obstruct the process BEFORE anyone has been nominated is a disgrace.
PS: It’s 47th Ward.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 4:51 pm
TC, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
The appropriate passage from Article 2, Section 2.
–…and he (president) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
It doesn’t say the president “shall” do so, if he feels like it. And it doesn’t say the Senate has the option not to act on those nominees.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 4:58 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Reagan appoint a Supreme Court Judge at the end of his 8 year term?
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:12 pm
@ Wordslinger,
You still seem to be living in 1988. NEWS FLASH! It is 2016! Note that I did not say that it never had been done. So bring yourself up to date and deal with todays political reality.
Comment by Feeraliat Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:15 pm
@ Wordslinger,
You still seem to be living in 1988. NEWS FLASH! It is 2016! Note that I did not say that it never had been done. So bring yourself up to date and deal with todays political reality.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:17 pm
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:52 am:
++=The only person in a hurry here is Obama.=++
“Don’t forget the plaintiffs and defendants who want justice.”
47th, I agree with you - lets remember all of the plaintiffs and defendants wanting justice. If a Democrat wins the presidential election, a Dem will still select the Supreme Court Judge. The Tea Party- Republicans gain nothing by waiting.
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:18 pm
The Republicans would be wise to consider any nominee Obama submits. If they do not support the candidate, list the reasons why and deny confirmation.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:20 pm
++- Federalist - Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:17 pm: ++
Are you saying the following U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 was changed?
“–…and he (president) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:25 pm
–You still seem to be living in 1988. NEWS FLASH! It is 2016!–
Federalist, you’ve got mad calendar skills, I’ll give you that.
But your theory just doesn’t pass the tests of history or the Constitution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
The Constitution says the president “…shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint… judges of the Supreme Court.”
Note the word “shall.” That’s an imperative, mandatory. The president shall nominate. The Senate’s imperative is to consider, then approve or reject, that nomination.
It’s unfortunate that Sen. McConnell, within an hour of learning of Justice Scalia’s death, chose to throw down a wildly politically partisan gauntlet.
But, he did, and you can’t un-ring that bell or pretend the discussion started anywhere else.
His intention for the Senate not even to consider any nominee — identity unknown — this year has no precedent in U.S. history, no basis in the Constitution, and no motivation but raw partisan politics.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 7:14 pm
It is almost laughable that anyone thinks Kirk will lose/gain even one vote because a Supreme Court nominee does, or does not get a hearing. What I would be worried about if I were Kirk is a CPS strike lingering into November….
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 8:18 pm
===It is almost laughable that anyone thinks Kirk will lose/gain even one vote because a Supreme Court nominee does, or does not get a hearing.===
Welp, there’s probably a reason Sen. Kirk hasn’t said he was in favor of stalling up to now, and I’m guessing going against Obama, in Illinois, and running a campaign while supporting a blatant obstruction of an Obama Supreme Court Nomimee has something to do with it.
Yeah, I’m sure… I’m sure that has something to do with it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 8:41 pm
OW, you may be right, who knows really. Kirk voted against OBAMAcare and I would have thought that risky. I still don’t think these national issues change people’s minds, but they seem to energize bases. It just appears the Obama candle doesn’t burn quite as bright as it did . I voted for BO eight years ago, and now quite frankly, think he’s wore out his welcome. Respectfully, BDD.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 8:59 pm
===It is almost laughable that anyone thinks Kirk will lose/gain even one vote because a Supreme Court nominee does, or does not get a hearing.===
I don’t recall Sen. Dixon almost laughing as to the impact his actions on a Supreme Court nominee had on his re-election bid.
–“Of course I was beat because I voted for Clarence Thomas,” Dixon admits.–
If the Scalia vacancy is not filled this year, it will be a major issue in the presidential race and every Senate race in the country.
In regards specifically to Illinois and Kirk, if the Senate Republicans refuse to even allow consideration of a nominee simply because it is made by Pres. Obama, it won’t take a marketing genius to use that against him in driving turnout among black, hispanic and suburban women voters.
The only good outcome for Kirk is if the issue is taken off the table with a confirmed appointment before the election. And the chances for that are remote, at best.
Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Alan-Dixon-I-Lost-Because-I-Voted-For-Clarence-Thomas-219784241.html#ixzz40QrwUVk0
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 17, 16 @ 7:53 am