Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer has been outspoken about the supposed obligation the GOP holds to vote-on and confirm whatever radical jurist President Obama proposes. Laboring under the belief that it is the Senate’s job to do the bidding of the executive branch, Sen. Schumer has it exactly backwards; it is the duty of the executive to execute the will of Congress, except in instances where the president has vetoed legislation and the Congress does not have enough votes to overturn the presidential veto.
After the untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Republicans announced that they would not be confirming any Supreme Court nominees until after the new president is sworn-in in January.
Predictably, the left feigned indignation and postured as if they would never, ever do such a thing. Sen. Schumer has taken the lead and has even cited the Constitution, the left’s most-reviled document, to support their argument that the GOP-controlled Senate is duty-bound to confirm a nominee.
Schumer blasted the move Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “Show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president’s only president for three years,” Schumer noted.
Of course, if Schumer were truly interested in the Constitution, he would note that Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.”
Where, exactly, in this clause is the notion that the Senate is obliged to confirm or even vote on the president’s nominee?
Further, the Founding Fathers considered an approach where the president’s nominee would be confirmed unless the Senate could muster a majority vote against. The notion was tossed and the “advice and consent” model was adopted. Thus, the Senate doesn’t have to do anything; Obama can spend the next year tossing radical judges at the Senate and they don’t even have to vote on them.
So who would do such a thing? Surely, this kind of politicking is the work of those darn obstructionists in the Republican Party, right? Surely, the Democrats are too noble for such political maneuvers, right?
Not only have Democrats been guilty of such moves, but the very same Chuck Schumer who is vilifying Republicans is the same Sen. Schumer who defended the practice in 2007.
On ABC’s This Week, Schumer ranted against Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Sen. McConnell, Schumer said, “doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, ‘no, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to lead the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.’”
“This kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last.” “We Democrats didn’t do this,” Schumer said. “We voted 97-0 for Justice Kennedy in the last year of Reagan’s term.”
However, in 2007, as George W. Bush was in his last year in office, Schumer rallied Democrats to do exactly the same thing, telling Democrats that they should not confirm another Supreme Court nominee under Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said in a speech to the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
This kind of politicking is not only a bi-party method, it goes back decades.
Heck, it was FDR, the left’s patron saint of big government, that came up with the court-packing scheme- a sickening abuse of power where FDR made a push for 12 justices on the Supreme Court instead of 9.
His plan failed, but the obvious advantage was intended to be, of course, that FDR could pick three judges and secure his majority on the bench to rubberstamp his radical “New Deal” agenda that continues to devastate America even today.
Politics is dirty and grimy and it takes a special kind of person to succeed in politics. It’s not for everyone. But let’s be very clear here: the fate of the country is on the line and as the Supreme Court is poised to consider some very important issues (including Obama’s illegal use of executive orders to circumvent Congress), it’s more important than ever that Republicans engage in these kinds of (legal) shenanigans for the greater good of our country.
It’s dirty, yes; but it’s legal and nothing that hasn’t been done before.