I believe that this seat was stolen from Obama by Republican obstructionism. If the Republicans were willing to postpone hearings until after a new president took office (almost a year) and were even saying they would leave the seat open for her entire presidency if Clinton were to be elected because she was -after all- under investigation by the FBI.... Well, the current president is under investigation by the FBI. The Republicans obviously don't think there's any rush to fill that seat, so I ask this: "What's the rush now?" Let's let the investigation conclude before we allow this president to make a lifetime judicial appointment.
But....
during the recent hearings, this exchange took place between Cruz and Gorsuch:
Cruz: What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything?
Gorsuch: 42.
I can't help but appreciate the interchange even though I despise Cruz and resent Gorsuch.
Posts
I have to agree with you, even though I didn't vote for either Clinton OR Trump. I DID like that 42 exchange! Good that you caught it, too.
ReplyDeleteI watched the coverage of hearings, and I couldn't believe that exchange happened. Downright bizarre.
DeleteI'm with you. I thought the republicans acted absolutely selfishly and never did their job they were voted for while Obama was in. They should all be investigated. But interesting you caught the 42-now that I know what that is all about. :) Hope it was wonderful Easter. Hugs-Erika
ReplyDeleteTheir only goal was sabotaging Obama. That's disappointing :(
DeletePersonally I have no problem with the way things went down Garland would have would have shifted the balance to judges who don't know there own job. Liberal judges time and time again cite foreign law and feelings of what would be fair. It sounds great but there job it assess cases based on the constitution.We might as well live in anarchy if the rules we have set up to control our government can be disregarded at the whims of individuals ideas of fairness or interpretation of foreign law.
ReplyDeleteIt was Obama's nomination to make, not the Republicans' nomination to block. They wouldn't even _meet_ with the man, and they had already said that if Clinton won they'd hold that seat open. She was under FBI investigation then, that's true, but so was (and is) Trump -we just didn't know about Trump then. Trump could get 2 more nominations if he lasts 4 years, and I'm sure he won't worry about keeping the current balance of the court when he nominates a judge hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation. "Based on the constitution" still requires the judge to interpret the constitution. That's how we end up with several layers of appeal courts disagreeing with lower court rulings. Like the Bible, it's all in the interpretation. That there have been amendments over the years speaks volumes.
DeleteAgain, that nomination was Obama's to make. The Senate didn't fulfill their constitutional advise/consent function.
It is not just in the interpretation when judges cite European law in making decisions as they did when a death penalty case came before the court. European law is not relevant in Supreme Court cases we can and should argue the outcomes, but congress should make laws not the court.
DeleteWhen it was thought an opening might happen in G.W.Bush's last year Joe Biden was advocating the same position the Republicans took with Garland, if the country doesn't like it we should petition congress to legislate more specificity to the process.
There is no "Biden Rule" (as I've heard Republicans call it), there was no opening, and the Democrats have never refused to meet with and have hearings on Supreme Court nominees. Republican action in this case was unprecedented, and to blame it on something Joe Biden mouthed off about years ago just seems bizarre. Historically, nominees have been heard, not delayed until after the administration changes; and the call for advise and consent doesn't seem to mean _refuse_ to advise and consent.
Delete