Time to delay on advise and consent

A method the Senate has for limiting the power of the Presidency, or preventing the Supreme Court from becoming an extension of the executive branch is not giving two-thirds consent of the Senate. The Constitutional basis for this is in Article II, Section 2 "...provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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..."

After the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, debate about his replacement soon began. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: “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.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley spoke on the matter as well:

“The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year...Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court justice.”

---

But Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer was quick to say that it wasn’t right for the Senate to do anything to delay any action on voting whether or not to approve President Obama’s soon to be announced Supreme Court nominee. However, in 2001 and 2007, the duplicitous Schumer felt there were good reasons for obstructing any nominees made by President George W. Bush. Americans for Tax Reform posted an article on August 5, 2005 that referred to Schumer’s previous pronouncements about Supreme Court nominees:

“In a June 26, 2001 New York Times op-ed, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a vocal member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued for using ideology as a litmus test for reviewing nominees to the federal bench. In the op-ed he states that ideology should be used to ‘the extent to which the president himself makes his initial selections on the basis of a particular ideology, the composition of the courts at the time of nomination and the political climate of the day.’ ”

On February 14 CNSNEWS.com reported that “in 2007 Schumer said, ‘I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito,’ and recommended the Senate, ‘should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances....The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance,’ Schumer told the American Constitution Society on July 27, 2007.” The Constitution repeatedly puts constraints on government, including one for Supreme Court nominees. The only way, according to the Constitution, that a new Supreme Court justice can be added is after two thirds of the Senate approves it. It doesn't say they have to do it rapidly. It doesn't say they have to have it brought before a committee or the whole Senate to have a vote for it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Senate majority leader refusing to even hold hearings. If Republicans feel that the Supreme Court is being packed to promote a political agenda they are diametrically opposed to, then refusing to even consider a nominee until after the Current President leaves office is their Constitutional right. If the Senate feels it is in the nation's vital interest to not allow any more Obama nominees on the Supreme Court then they have the Constitutional right to oppose whomever he nominated. If the President doesn't like that, then he has the Constitutional right to submit an acceptable nominee. Ted Kennedy and the Democrats give the precedent to oppose nominees based on their politics when they went all-out, using lies and distortions, to defeat the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. Then Hillary Clinton, needing some media attention for her presidential ambitions, played the race card. Never content to remain in the realm of truth, she lied to a predominately black audience in Harlem, New York on February 17 about "the Republicans," “some of whom are even saying he doesn't have the right to nominate anyone, as if somehow he's not the real President." Where are all the liberal fact-checkers on this one? No one is saying he doesn't have the right! But she had to manufacture this non-quote to continue her race-baiting narrative that the whole issue is motivated by hatred of black people. But get this! She continues, saying: "This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics of our country." Of course it has no place, because it doesn't exist! Any racism is coming from Hillary Clinton on this issue. She seeks to ensnare black people into believing her lie, shackling them with the chains of deception so she can drag them into her web of lies, as she insinuates that the opposition party has leaders who are venomous racists. Then, having slyly hooked her audience with a whopper of a lie, namely, that Republicans think President Obama doesn't have the right to nominate a Supreme Court justice because Obama is black, she drives it home with the conclusion, "The President has the right to nominate under the Constitution." But no one said he didn't have the right! Where are the Republicans whom she is accusing? Why are they not responding to this! No wonder the Clintons and other Democrats continue to get away with their racist manipulations! And among the various other sightings of Democrats pretending to be Constitutional scholars there was Senator Cory Booker. While promoting his latest book on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Monday, February 15, 2016, he said, "As I read the Constitution, it clearly says, we have an obligation, the President has an obligation, um, to do our Constitutional duty to fill a vacancy. To allow that seat to remain vacant for more than a year, with all the consequential things going through the Supreme Court is unacceptable.” All this sudden need by Democrats to follow the Constitution is nothing more than subterfuge. They think they have to invoke the Constitution and make up reasons to justify why we need a new Supreme Court justice as soon as possible, when the real reason is very simple: they know this could be their last opportunity to tip the Supreme Court to a majority on the left while they have a President that will appoint one.