Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Do as I say, not as I do

Patterico: "President Obama on filibustering Alito: That was different!"  Back in 2006, Senator Obama wanted to prevent a judicial nominee from getting an up-or-down confirmation vote in the Senate.  But things are different now because...shut up.


Nigel Tufnel said...

Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Especially Democrats, obvy.

Somehow Alito managed to get onto the Court in spite of it all.

Do you think that the GOP should use their Senate power to follow through on their vow to block any nomination by Obama?
Do you think that is the right thing to do?
Do you think that is the intent of the process as outlined in the Constitution? What does the Viking Pundit think the GOP should do?
What does the Viking Pundit thing of the justification of this course of action in the name of 'letting the American people decide' in light of Obama's having been elected President twice by clear majorities of American voters?

Nigel believes any duly elected President has the right and obligation to nominate justices, and the Senate should only block a nomination if the nominee is a felon or something nasty like that. Nigel hasn't been fond of some nominees over the years, but that's the game and the citizens of America get the results of their votes. Nigel believes that the argument of 'letting the American people decide' is laughable given Obama's having been elected twice, ergo the GOP doesn't even have a half decent rationalization for their dereliction of duty.

Eric said...

Well, Nigel, I'm glad you asked. Because when contentious issues like this come up, I often go to the very learned pages of the New York Times for guidance. Here's what they said, under precisely the same conditions, when a lame-duck President faced a Senate that had flipped to the opposition party in the last midterm election:

"The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year."

The people - and the Old Gray Lady - have spoken.

Nigel Tufnel said...

Your Jedi deflection tricks don't work on me! I don't even read the Times, for cryin' out loud. Why waste time reading any paper's editorials anyway? It's the intellectual equivalent of asking a drunk in a bar what he thinks.

I think my Snark-English translation of your response is: "Yeah, I basically agree because I respect the system as it is supposed to work, but I can't come out and say that because such an act commits the heresy of supporting the notion that the Senate should approve a valid nominee made by President Barack Hussein Obama."

Eric said...

Yeah, you're right: if the shoe were on the other foot, I'd be making the opposite argument.
But, for once, I'd like the Democrats to live by the very rules they have established. If you see the video, Obama was taken aback when confronted by his own hypocrisy. Chuck Schumer can't walk back his speech where he said the "balance" of the Court has to be considered when blocking a nominee. The Democrats invented "Borking", used the "nuclear option" to drop the confirmation vote threshold to 50 (for lower judges), and filibustered Miguel Estrada from even getting his precious up-or-down vote.
These are their standards: they should live by them.

Hugo T. Quackenbush said...

"These, gentlemen, are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

Eric said...

Since I'm a Marxist, I get that ref.