Hypocrisy.....Strict constructionist.....well sometimes

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/13/1484831/-Sen-Mitch-McConnell-in-2005-The-President-and-the-President-alone-nominates-judges

Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2005: 'The President, and the President alone, nominates judges

Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges.

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."
"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"

Take it from Sen. Mitch McConnell: for the Senate to block a sitting president from nominating a Supreme Court nominee—not just a specific nominee, mind you, but any nominee at all, would put the Constitution of the United States itself at stake. And he's a patriot, so he would never even consider such a thing.

*************

RealLindaL wrote:

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Lol... all this teeth gnashing over something that hasn't happened. If obama nominates a moderate it's a non issue.

You haven't been paying attention.

The Repukes have been perfectly clear.

Even if Obama reanimates the corpse of Scalia and nominates him, the GOP aren't giving him a hearing.

I have to agree with Sal, Pkr.   Everything coming from the Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail says there's no way they'll entertain ANY candidate for the court Obama nominates.   I'm pretty sure I heard Rubio, for instance, say something like, "We want this election to be a referendum on the Supreme Court."   As if!!!  Where do we find THAT provision in the Constitution??

The process has obligations. The senate will hold hearings. What took place is called political posturing... I won't need to explain that to leftists. For you I will... the pubs want to press obama into nominating a moderate candidate.

knothead wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Salinsky wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Lol... all this teeth gnashing over something that hasn't happened. If obama nominates a moderate it's a non issue.

You haven't been paying attention.

The Repukes have been perfectly clear.

Even if Obama reanimates the corpse of Scalia and nominates him, the GOP aren't giving him a hearing.

I have to agree with Sal, Pkr.   Everything coming from the Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail says there's no way they'll entertain ANY candidate for the court Obama nominates.   I'm pretty sure I heard Rubio, for instance, say something like, "We want this election to be a referendum on the Supreme Court."   As if!!!  Where do we find THAT provision in the Constitution??

I feel it is going to be largely a referendum on conservatism!

Excellent thought, Knot, and well it could be.

PkrBum wrote:The process has obligations. The senate will hold hearings. What took place is called political posturing... I won't need to explain that to leftists. For you I will... the pubs want to press obama into nominating a moderate candidate.

It sounds to me so far as if most of the potential candidates likely on Obama's short list are moderates anyway.  And while I agree that a certain amount of posturing is going on, what I see its more likely being all about is gaining/retaining votes from the harder right factions of the party -- i.e.,  being seen as "really, truly conservative."  Apparently, being simultaneously seen as pure obstructionists is of little or no concern to these people, which tells me they've discounted more moderate Republicans and Independents as being of any use to them whatsoever in the primaries and/or the eventual presidential and Congressional elections --which could prove a very dangerous bet.

We shall see.

We shall certainly see... and what we know now is next to nothing.