Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
Except isn't not for the same reasons. Schumer was saying that Bush was appointing ideologues, so he was opposed to confirming any Bush nominee because he felt the SC was right-wing enough already.
McConnell, et al, are spinning a song and dance about the Constitution and the will of the voters (which, the voters expressed their will in 2008 and 2012), rather than just being honest and saying they only want a right-winger on the SC.
It's a false comparison. Schumer, at least, was being honest. The GOP is not.
And they're just morons in how they handled this. Here's how they could have done it:
"Absolutely, he should nominate whoever he sees fit. He is the President, after all."
(Then, just vote down any candidate, with whatever reason they come up with. Now, they've already shown their hand and they look obstructionist, as usual)
|
It's for the same reason. Schumer didn't want another Conservative on the court. The republicans obviously don't want some left-winger replacing Scalia. The republicans have come up with an excuse to oppose any Obama nominee, the excuse being that this is an election year and the next President should appoint the next Justice. They obviously wouldn't be saying that if the current President was a Republican. We all know that. Their reason for opposing is the same reason that Schumer opposed. That's not exactly a secret.
The republican posturing may not necessarily be a bad idea. They may be sending Obama a message that he better nominate a moderate, if he wants any chance to have the nominee approved. I doubt Obama will do this. He's not big on compromise. It may come down to who he thinks the next President will be. If he thinks the next President will be a democrat, then he can play hardball. But if he thinks the next President will be a Republican, then he is better off getting a moderate on the bench right now, rather than having Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or whoever putting a right-winger on the Court.