Grassley: No hearings for anyone Obama nominates for Supreme Court

[cigaretteman]

Senators will not hold confirmation hearings on anyone President Barack Obama nominates for the U.S. Supreme Court, Iowa Sen, Chuck Grassley and other Republican senators said Tuesday.

“Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017,” reads a letter from all 11 GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Grassley chairs. The letter was not signed by the nine Democratic members of the committee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said it was the “overwhelming view” of Senate Republicans that the court vacancy created by the death this month of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled by the Democratic president.

McConnell said it was not likely he’d meet with any nominee put forth by Obama, and that he could not guarantee that the next president would ever get an up-or-down vote on Obama’s choice.

The White House has said that Obama — who has 11 months left in office — intends to make a nomination in the coming weeks.

The Supreme Court is now working with eight justices, leading to the likelihood that some of the nation’s most contentious issues — involving the power of unions, climate change regulations and state abortion restrictions — could result in a tie.

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/n...ne-obama-nominates-for-supreme-court-20160223

 

[theiacowtipper]

So I would have some questions for Senator Grassley. I am sure the tame Iowa media won't ask their favorite tractor riding Republican any questions, but here are some for him.

At what point does the senate stop confirming nominees? If Democrats take control of the Senate in January of 2017, can they refuse to hear judicial nominees? How about 2018? Is that too early? What is the sweet spot for this?

Is this the most blatant act of partisanship in the history of the Senate?

If a justice steps down in early 2018, can democrats filibuster any nominee because there is a chance that democrats retake the Senate that fall, and the people need their say.

Most importantly, if Romney had won in 2012, would we be holding hearings asap or would the "people need to have their say".

 

[Funky Bunch]

Since Rubio isn't running for re-election, should he be able to vote for anything for the rest of his term. Yeah I know, he never shows up anyway.

 

[naturalmwa]

Iowans ought to permanently reduce this guy's pay. If he doesn't want to do his job, lets send him home.

 

[The Tradition]

Iowans ought to permanently reduce this guy's pay. If he doesn't want to do his job, lets send him home.

He's doing his job. He's sending a signal to Obama that this nomination isn't going to be the cakewalk that Kagan and Sotomayor were.

When negotiating, you start at a ridiculous position, and then, negotiate.

You should be proud of your senator, Iowans.

 

[theiacowtipper]

He's doing his job. He's sending a signal to Obama that this nomination isn't going to be the cakewalk that Kagan and Sotomayor were.

When negotiating, you start at a ridiculous position, and then, negotiate.

You should be proud of your senator, Iowans.

So if he refuses to conduct hearings you will call him out?

 

[naturalmwa]

He's doing his job. He's sending a signal to Obama that this nomination isn't going to be the cakewalk that Kagan and Sotomayor were.

When negotiating, you start at a ridiculous position, and then, negotiate.

You should be proud of your senator, Iowans.

Thats stupid. That's like saying Rubio missing all those votes was just him sending a signal. Floridians I'm sure are proud of the little cutie.

 

[lucas80]

Iowans ought to permanently reduce this guy's pay. If he doesn't want to do his job, lets send him home.

But he wears a John Deere cap and holds private meetings in all 99 counties every year!

 

[lucas80]

I wonder if Obama could petition to the Supreme Court some aspect of this? How would the SC react?

 

[Err.]

But he wears a John Deere cap and holds private meetings in all 99 counties every year!

Don't forget, he mows his own lawn too.

 

[The Tradition]

Don't forget, he mows his own lawn too.

Good man.

 

[22*43*51]

Moar gridlock!

 

[IMCC965]

You can thank the Democrats, Chuck Schumer, but mostly you can thank good ole' Joe Biden for setting the precedent.

Thank you Dems. And the Senate has every right as a governing body to do this. Elections have consequences, so thank you Obama for that.

 

[naturalmwa]

I wonder how Obama will play this. Will he roll out a centrist guy to show how unreasonable Rs are? Or will he run out a string of poster candidates to energize the D base by forcing Rs to reject them? Let the games begin. He should nominate Oprah.

 

[joelbc1]

Respectfully, Senator Grassley is full of shit on this one. I believe he is too old to serve any longer.

 

[Err.]

You can thank the Democrats, Chuck Schumer, but mostly you can thank good ole' Joe Biden for setting the precedent.

Thank you Dems. And the Senate has every right as a governing body to do this. Elections have consequences, so thank you Obama for that.

So if the GOP wins the Whitehouse, you won't mind if the Dems filibuster any nominee the GOP pres tries to nominate.. an election will be just around the corner you know..

 

[aflachawk]

I wonder how Obama will play this. Will he roll out a centrist guy to show how unreasonable Rs are? Or will he run out a string of poster candidates to energize the D base by forcing Rs to reject them? Let the games begin. He should nominate Oprah.

BHO will go to all out war. I wish he bargained half as hard with China, Russia and Iran as he does with Republicans. The country would be a lot better off.

 

[theiacowtipper]

So if the GOP wins the Whitehouse, you won't mind if the Dems filibuster any nominee the GOP pres tries to nominate.. an election will be just around the corner you know..

Exactly correct. Where does this stuff end? Inauguration Day is 11 months away. How long is too long? Should there be any nominees confirmed in the last two years of a presidency? Three years?

 

[IMCC965]

So if the GOP wins the Whitehouse, you won't mind if the Dems filibuster any nominee the GOP pres tries to nominate.. an election will be just around the corner you know..

If the Dems control the Senate during a presidential election year, then yes, it is their right to not have a hearing. Just like they did when Biden held it up during Bush's time.

What's the problem?

 

[theiacowtipper]

You can thank the Democrats, Chuck Schumer, but mostly you can thank good ole' Joe Biden for setting the precedent.

Thank you Dems. And the Senate has every right as a governing body to do this. Elections have consequences, so thank you Obama for that.

Link to Democrats ever denying a Republican nominee for SCOTUS a vote. If this is done by Republicans it will be the most partisan act ever done in Senate history. Not partisan threat, partisan act.

 

[IMCC965]

Exactly correct. Where does this stuff end? Inauguration Day is 11 months away. How long is too long? Should there be any nominees confirmed in the last two years of a presidency? Three years?

Let's do apples to apples. It is the year of a presidential election campaign. What's so hard to comprehend about this?

If you need a tutorial on how it's done, just google Joe Biden giving the speech that explains it. If it's OK for the Dems to do it, why can't the Repubs do it?

 

[aflachawk]

So if the GOP wins the Whitehouse, you won't mind if the Dems filibuster any nominee the GOP pres tries to nominate.. an election will be just around the corner you know..

No then as long as we retain the Senate, we will invoke the Reid rule and make judicial nominations an up or down vote with a simple majority. As BHO told Republicans when they tried to give them a few ideas on health insurance and he rejected them all out of hand---------Elections have consequences

 

[Err.]

If the Dems control the Senate during a presidential election year, then yes, it is their right to not have a hearing. Just like they did when Biden held it up during Bush's time.

What's the problem?

Dems controlled the Senate when Kennedy was nominated and confirmed.

The GOP is now saying no hearing when we won't have a new President for almost a year. So maybe the Dems should extend that even further, even if they don't control the Senate. If we can wait a year for a new President, why not 2, 3, or 4.

 

[IMCC965]

Link to Democrats ever denying a Republican nominee for SCOTUS a vote. If this is done by Republicans it will be the most partisan act ever done in Senate history. Not partisan threat, partisan act.

Here you go:

 

[theiacowtipper]

If the Dems control the Senate during a presidential election year, then yes, it is their right to not have a hearing. Just like they did when Biden held it up during Bush's time.

What's the problem?

Link to Biden holding up a Supreme Court nominee. Didn't happen did it. Why does it have to be in an election year? Is there some secret constitutional caveat that says it is limited to an election year? Why not the last two years.

If Democrats had the fight Republicans have, they would shut the place down until November. Zero votes on anything. If Republicans won't do there job, close the place down.

 

[naturalmwa]

BHO will go to all out war. I wish he bargained half as hard with China, Russia and Iran as he does with Republicans. The country would be a lot better off.

I hope you are right. This is a lot more important than Russia, et al.

 

[IMCC965]

Link to Biden holding up a Supreme Court nominee. Didn't happen did it. Why does it have to be in an election year? Is there some secret constitutional caveat that says it is limited to an election year? Why not the last two years.

If Democrats had the fight Republicans have, they would shut the place down until November. Zero votes on anything. If Republicans won't do there job, close the place down.

Research what he did to Robert Bork as well. And I linked him giving a speech on the floor of the Senate stating no nominations should be held during an election year.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Here you go:

View embedded media

Of course when he said that there was no vacancy. Idle threat. The most partisan act in Senate history. Amazing how Republicans can claim that Democrats have acted in a partisan manner on anything.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Research what he did to Robert Bork as well. And I linked him giving a speech on the floor of the Senate stating no nominations should be held during an election year.

BORK GOT A HEARING AND A VOTE. The senate did its job. The most partisan act in Senate history.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Are we going to post every idle threat made by every Senator over time? Again, Biden did not prevent a vote on any single Republican nominee for SCOTUS.

 

[IMCC965]

Of course when he said that there was no vacancy. Idle threat. The most partisan act in Senate history. Amazing how Republicans can claim that Democrats have acted in a partisan manner on anything.

What difference, at this point, does it make? Just because there wasn't an opening, Biden decided to make a point of it and put his foot down. All the Republicans are doing is what Biden promised to do.

 

[joelbc1]

Grassley and McConnell fail to understand that Senators are elected by states and not by the people of ther nation at large. The Senators also conveniently fail to mention that the current Senate is the result of elections over the past 6 years. "We the people" vote for Senators to fulfill their obligation according to the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say the job of the Senator is to obstruct. One of the enumerated duties of POTUS is to nominate qualified candidates to the SC. The Senates job is to vet and vote on these candidates. What Grassley and McConnell are saying is that they are going to obstruct Obama. Of course, why is this a surprise....McConnell promised this 8 years ago.

 

[theiacowtipper]

What difference, at this point, does it make? Just because there wasn't an opening, Biden decided to make a point of it and put his foot down. All the Republicans are doing is what Biden promised to do.

So you agree that this is the most partisan act in Senate history? Biden's comments were the view of one senator. They were not endorsed by leadership and the senate votes on other nominees. In this case, Republican leadership is nearly unanimous in taking an act that is blatantly, and only being done for partisan purposes. Are you ok with that precedent? There is no reason for Democrats to hold this to the last year of a future presidency. Why not two, maybe three? Where does this crap stop?

Since day 1 of the Obama presidency, the goal of McConnell has been to defeat Obama without any sense of what is best for the country. Partisan hack that you are, I'm sure you're fine with that.

 

[IMCC965]

Grassley and McConnell fail to understand that Senators are elected by states and not by the people of ther nation at large. The Senators also conveniently fail to mention that the current Senate is the result of elections over the past 6 years. "We the people" vote for Senators to fulfill their obligation according to the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say the job of the Senator is to obstruct. One of the enumerated duties of POTUS is to nominate qualified candidates to the SC. The Senates job is to vet and vote on these candidates. What Grassley and McConnell are saying is that they are going to obstruct Obama. Of course, why is this a surprise....McConnell promised this 8 years ago.

Wrong.

According to McConnell:

“Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a morning floor speech. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

And, according to Judge Alito, there is no requirement in the Constitution to have a certain number of judges to be on the bench.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ns-say-no-hearings-for-supreme-court-nominee/

 

[IMCC965]

So you agree that this is the most partisan act in Senate history? Biden's comments were the view of one senator. They were not endorsed by leadership and the senate votes on other nominees. In this case, Republican leadership is nearly unanimous in taking an act that is blatantly, and only being done for partisan purposes. Are you ok with that precedent? There is no reason for Democrats to hold this to the last year of a future presidency. Why not two, maybe three? Where does this crap stop?

Since day 1 of the Obama presidency, the goal of McConnell has been to defeat Obama without any sense of what is best for the country. Partisan hack that you are, I'm sure you're fine with that.

No. This is FAAARRR from the most partisan act in Senate history. Dirty Harry Reid has pulled MANY that are far worse over the last eight years. And Biden was the HEAD of the Judiciary Committee. Did you forget that?

 

[joelbc1]

Wrong.

According to McConnell:

“Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a morning floor speech. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

And, according to Judge Alito, there is no requirement in the Constitution to have a certain number of judges to be on the bench.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ns-say-no-hearings-for-supreme-court-nominee/

So then withhold consent...meaning take a vote and go on record. But to deny a nominee by telling the POTUS we aren't going to vet candidate for 6 months because this is an election year is total bullcrap. It is pure partisan politics at its highest level. And remember IMCC.....these things come back at you in spades. Don't thing there is a Dem or two who is not taking notes.
And you are righjt..their is no Constitution provision as to the number of justices on the SC....I remember FDR tried to determine that once.........

 

[theiacowtipper]

No. This is FAAARRR from the most partisan act in Senate history. Dirty Harry Reid has pulled MANY that are far worse over the last eight years. And Biden was the HEAD of the Judiciary Committee. Did you forget that?

Be specific, what is a more partisan act? We have a Senate that is apparently going to refuse hearings on a nominee, any nominee, because they don't like the president. Name a more partisan act done by Reid. Biden held hearings on every nominee sent to him.

 

[theiacowtipper]

No. This is FAAARRR from the most partisan act in Senate history. Dirty Harry Reid has pulled MANY that are far worse over the last eight years. And Biden was the HEAD of the Judiciary Committee. Did you forget that?

would you condemn a Democratic Senate from refusing hearings a year out from an election? 18 months? 2 years? What is the end point for future reference?

 

[IMCC965]

would you condemn a Democratic Senate from refusing hearings a year out from an election? 18 months? 2 years? What is the end point for future reference?

OK. Let's try this again. Read sloooooowwwwwllllly:

If during a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR a Supreme Court justice needs to be appointed, then the NEXT PRESIDENT elected (whether the same guy or different guy takes office) THAT PRESIDENT will nominate a candidate and THAT SENATE will confirm or deny.

Simple.

 

[IMCC965]

Be specific, what is a more partisan act? We have a Senate that is apparently going to refuse hearings on a nominee, any nominee, because they don't like the president. Name a more partisan act done by Reid. Biden held hearings on every nominee sent to him.

Obamacare. BOTH the House and Senate locked out Republicans from the discussions and the formation of the law. Rules were changed by Reid in order to get it through under cover of darkness.