FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/16/2016 9:42:16 AM PDT by pilgrim
‘The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction…The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor today following the President’s announcement of his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court:
“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.
“It is a President’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a President and withhold its consent.
“As Chairman Grassley and I declared weeks ago, and reiterated personally to President Obama, the Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision.
“The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next President may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.
“Let me remind colleagues what Vice President Biden said when he was Judiciary Chairman here in the Senate:
‘It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me…we will be in deep trouble as an institution. Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it…the cost of such a result — the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four — are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President…’
“Consider that last part. Then-Senator Biden said that the cost to the nation would be too great no matter who the President nominates. President Obama and his allies may now try to pretend this disagreement is about a person, but as I just noted, his own Vice President made clear it’s not. The Biden Rule reminds us that the decision the Senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle, not a person.
“It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election — which is the type of thing then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Biden was concerned about. The Biden Rule underlines that what the President has done with this nomination would be unfair to any nominee, and more importantly the rule warns of the great costs the President’s action could carry for our nation.
“Americans are certain to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side in the coming days, but here are the facts they’ll keep in mind:
The current Democratic Leader said the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and he noted that the Constitution does not require the Senate to give presidential nominees a vote. The incoming Democratic Leader did not even wait until the final year of George W. Bush’s term to essentially tell the Senate not to consider any Supreme Court nominee the President sent. The ‘Biden Rule’ supports what the Senate is doing today, underlining that what we’re talking about is a principle not a person.
“So here’s our view. Instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can’t agree, let’s keep working to address the issues where we can.
“We just passed critical bipartisan legislation to help address the heroin and prescription opioid crisis in our country. Let’s build on that success. Let’s keep working together to get our economy moving again and make our country safer, rather than endlessly debating an issue where we don’t agree.
“As we continue working on issues like these, the American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue. So let’s give them a voice. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next President nominates, whoever that might be.”
And yet, GOPe is saying the people’s vote doesn’t count on POTUS and they want a brokered convention
You mean the caving?
The Biden Rule... hahaha get lost Obama
The bluster before the caving. :)
They have to make a pretense of protesting.
Hope they ‘mean it this time!’
I have to admit: quoting the Biden Rule was a good move. It shoves it back in the Democrats’ faces.
Biden Rule, Schumer Rule, Obama Rule, Kennedy Rule.
Now would be a great time to play by the “rules” which all of the above hypocrites defined — and which the liberal media totally supported and defended.
But instead we have Mitch, who will probably cave before 5 PM today if he hasn’t already.
The Biden rule = Just get a shotgun, man! Fire it in the air!
Agreed. If this was Ruth Buzzy and his proposed replacement was in fact reasonably moderate (always a crapshoot, I think some of them hold their fire until it's too late to do anything about it), then fine. Since he wants to replace one of the more sane Justices, uh, NO.
Yurtle speak for “give us time and we’ll slip him right in for ya Barry, ‘ol buddy.”
And so the dance begins.
Like it or not, Trump still speaks only for a plurality of the delegate and, to the point, the voters in primaries. “the people”is too broad a claim. I do stink however that he probably will have his majority by convention time. My concerns remains: Can he get his negatives down? Can he win without whipping his horse?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Yep, the toning down has started. Next statement issued by the Turtle will have a more compromise tone etc, until the appointment, then the fake condemnation, and finally the acceptance. We have seen this movie a dozen times, staring spineless Mc Turtle.
They do cave TRUMP stampedes them with the nomination!!! They certainly are in a corner now aren’t they !!!!
There are already cracks 3 senators wish to speak to the nominee, and guess who, the idiot from Maine, Isoff, I can’t remember the other!!!
It certainly has. Obama set the trap and the Republicans have walked right into it. Think about it. A 63 year old white guy? Based on the choices for the past 45 years he's too old, and for this administration he's the wrong race. Garland is one candidate who, on the face of it, has nothing that the Republicans could complain about. That's why he was chosen. This nomination is meant for one reason and one reason only; so the Democrats can hammer away about the obstructionist Republican congress on the campaign trail.
Useless piece of ****!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.