Taken to the logical conclusion, all future presidents only get to fill court vacancies that existed before the election, vacancies that were there on inauguration day. Any vacancy occurring during a president's term simply waits for the next inauguration to be considered.
Or maybe we could amend the constitution to give the Senate, 90 days to reject a nominee, otherwise the appointment is confirmed by default.
Or maybe we could amend the constitution to give the Senate, 90 days to reject a nominee, otherwise the appointment is confirmed by default.
6
The arguments about the Republican strategy are all wet. None of it matters. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give a timeline or a requirement to hold hearings or vote. It simply says with 'advice and consent' of the Senate. Sure, there's a lot of history around that process, but there are precedent setting processes all the time. It's a 100% political process, just like impeachment, and the trial in the Senate following impeachment. So....all of you pontificating about what the Dems did or did not do, what VP Biden said or didn't say, the context of those actions and statements, Republican maneuvering.....none of it matters. If the Republican majority decides not to hold a hearing and bring the confirmation to a vote, that's their right under the Constitution, and in essence, is providing "advice and consent": and the answer is NO. If you don't like it, that's fine. Vote the "offending" Senators out of office.
"Now there's a new battle over the mainstream, what we might call the confirmation-process mainstream. It began within hours of Justice Scalia's death last month..."
The fact that the death of a single supreme court justice could cause so much conflict with forces being gathered on both sides to wage battle lays bare a deficiency in our constitution. The role of supreme court justice has become too powerful for a lifetime appointment.
It is time for supreme court justice term limits!
Knowing that a nominee could only serve for a fixed time should cool the conflict since opponents will not have to worry that the nominee could server as much as 30 or 40 years.
The fact that the death of a single supreme court justice could cause so much conflict with forces being gathered on both sides to wage battle lays bare a deficiency in our constitution. The role of supreme court justice has become too powerful for a lifetime appointment.
It is time for supreme court justice term limits!
Knowing that a nominee could only serve for a fixed time should cool the conflict since opponents will not have to worry that the nominee could server as much as 30 or 40 years.
4
Excellent column. The Republican's greatest fear is being in the situation where an eminently qualified jurist is voted down because he was nominated by a Democrat. They are simply deluding themselves that independents...a group essential to Republican hopes for electoral victory...will be fooled by this political gamesmanship. To deny even a hearing to the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit of Appeals, the man who prosecuted the Oklahoma City bombers, is so transparently political posturing it cannot be anything else. They just handed the Democratic candidates for US Senate a powerful issue.
4
Some Republicans senators are talking about waiting until after the election in November and, if Hillary is elected, proceeding with a hearing and a vote on Garland's nomination. Question: If Hillary is elected, and especially if she is elected and the Democrats retake the Senate, can Obama withdraw his nomination to allow her to nominate someone more liberal in January?
3
The Bork hearings were in effect a referendum on the right of privacy, taking out of the realm of the "penumbra" and cementing it as a fundamental constitutional right recognized and approved by the nation.
The Republican Party leadership in Congress has decided that they represent not all those takers out there who elected the Democratic President but the real salt of the Earth people of this country, the religious cultural conservatives and the nouveau riche would be plutocrats who both awe and terrify them. Those true citizens are going to make Trump the Republican nominee and those Republican leaders in the house are going to end up with Donald Trump, unless he deflates like a balloon during the general election, or Hillary Clinton. Trump will give the Republicans anyone that they like but they will not like doing business with an ignorant narcissist. Hillary will give them only progressive leaning jurists and a Supreme Court with a progressive leaning majority. At that point, the Republican leadership will decide that the "people" want to wait until after the election of 2020 to fill the empty seat. The Republican leadership are going to obstruct any governance which is not directed at revising this government into one that represents the best people, the Republicans' core constituencies, and is not hampered by the interference of all those losers that make up the majority of the citizenry who keep electing those traitorous Democrats President.
3
The Republican game seems to be to refuse to consider a nominee until they learn who won the general election. If a Democrat, they will quickly confirm Judge Garland; if a Republican, they will decline to conduct a hearing and allow the newly elected president to nominate a conservative to join the Court. If I were President Obama and if a Democrat wins the general election, I would withdraw Judge Garland's nomination and allow the newly elected president to start over. The new president could re-nominate Judge Garland or not, but this approach will show McConnel that two can play his cynical game.
3
All this leads one to speculate once more about term limits.
MacConnell (sic) is not only not qualified to be a senator, he's barely qualified to be considered human. Term limits may not be The Answer, but it, at least, will prevent the mass accumulation of wealth (as Mcconnell (sic) has done).
If these so-called "servants of the Public" are so dedicated to serve, why not cut the salaries down to the average pay of working Americans?
MacConnell (sic) is not only not qualified to be a senator, he's barely qualified to be considered human. Term limits may not be The Answer, but it, at least, will prevent the mass accumulation of wealth (as Mcconnell (sic) has done).
If these so-called "servants of the Public" are so dedicated to serve, why not cut the salaries down to the average pay of working Americans?
3
Sen. McConnell says today: " Republicans think the people deserve a voice in this critical decision. The president does not. So we disagree in this instance and as a result, we logically act as a check and balance.”
His logic doesn't work for two-year-olds.
1 - the people deserve a voice - we elected Obama twice, knowing he can nominate Supreme Court justices - even replacements for ultra-right Scalia.
2 - we act as a check and a balance - no, even if it were necessary for the Senate to block Obama from Doing His Job, the correct path for the Senate to do that is to Do Their Job. They should have the hearings, review the nomination and vote on it.
McConnell has lost all desire to have a functioning government. He should resign.
His logic doesn't work for two-year-olds.
1 - the people deserve a voice - we elected Obama twice, knowing he can nominate Supreme Court justices - even replacements for ultra-right Scalia.
2 - we act as a check and a balance - no, even if it were necessary for the Senate to block Obama from Doing His Job, the correct path for the Senate to do that is to Do Their Job. They should have the hearings, review the nomination and vote on it.
McConnell has lost all desire to have a functioning government. He should resign.
13
I guess no one would argue that "progressives" can follow logical thought. On your #1 the people also elected a republican house and senate to act as a check. On #2 the Senate has not prevented Obama from doing his job, he has done so and selected Garland. The Senate is doing their job which is NOT defined as rubber stamping Obama's nominations rather acting as a check. I somehow doubt you will have the same desire for a dictator once a republican is elected as President in November.
Personally, after viewing news of the Garland appointment, I find it appalling and disgusting that the Republicans believe they are "entitled" to this Supreme Court nomination. Growing up, the Supreme Court Justices were suppose to be above the political fray. Yes, they have made momentous decisions that have thwarted discrimination and increased a individual rights, but these decisions were made to maintain or add equality and freedom for all. Now, the Republican directives are all about treating the corporation as a person with rights, and removing the rights of the female person. Our political system is completely broken, and I don't understand what we can do as citizens to fix it.
8
Don't let them tell you that you have no powers reserved to yourself just because they are not listed in the Constitution.
The art of government is playing fair with the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution.
The art of government is playing fair with the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution.
1
The author misrepresents the conditions. There will be no questioning of Garland so there are no similarities to the Borking of Bork.
On the other hand the Republican's decision to leave the nomination partly up to the people is sure to energize republicans to vote.
On the other hand the Republican's decision to leave the nomination partly up to the people is sure to energize republicans to vote.
2
Let the showdown of Faith v. Reason proceed.
1
I agree, however I don't believe that the Republicans will leave any nomination of any kind up to the voters.
It will be determined by the elites who will broker a Cruz nomination at the convention, (whose court choice will certainly be Tea Party/GOP approved).
Energizing republicans to vote, and then seeing their votes dismissed and replaced by the Party's elite's choice will, to put it mildly, delegitimize the Republican Party to many Republican voters.
It will be determined by the elites who will broker a Cruz nomination at the convention, (whose court choice will certainly be Tea Party/GOP approved).
Energizing republicans to vote, and then seeing their votes dismissed and replaced by the Party's elite's choice will, to put it mildly, delegitimize the Republican Party to many Republican voters.
2
Senate Republicans foolishly started their tantrum even before Justice Scalia's body was cold and long before President Obama nominated the clearly qualified Judge Garland.
They just can't control themselves and, as a result, are bad at politics.
No wonder they're about to see the dazzlingly dangerous and unfit Donald Trump become their presidential nominee.
They just can't control themselves and, as a result, are bad at politics.
No wonder they're about to see the dazzlingly dangerous and unfit Donald Trump become their presidential nominee.
9
They obviously wanted to make it impossible for President Obama to find a willing qualified nominee.
3
News flash, Republicans. The Bork dustup was 30 years ago. Bork is dead. Reagan is dead. Time to grow up and do your job.
5
Thank you, Linda Greenhouse, for yet another wonderfully insightful editorial regarding the Supreme Court. Keep 'em comin'!
4
A fairly long piece, but Ms. Greeenhouse could not find space to list the six "Republican” Senators who voted against Mr. Bork, nor could Ms. Greenhouse spare a few words to tell us which of Mr. Bork's answers was the most "offensive" to Senate Democrats.
Well, the six "Republican" Senators who voted "no" were Chafee (RI), Packwood (OR), Specter (PA), Stafford (VT), Warner (VA) and Weicker (CT).
And it was not what Mr. Bork had to say that doomed his nomination, but it was instead, what Senator Kennedy said about Mr. Bork, and here it is: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy,”.
Well, the six "Republican" Senators who voted "no" were Chafee (RI), Packwood (OR), Specter (PA), Stafford (VT), Warner (VA) and Weicker (CT).
And it was not what Mr. Bork had to say that doomed his nomination, but it was instead, what Senator Kennedy said about Mr. Bork, and here it is: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy,”.
6
Naomi:
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and to share your thoughts.
The six GOP senators who voted "no", with the exception of Senator Warner, had very low ratings with the American Conservative Union. The majority of these senators were/are essentially Democrats, and therefore, their votes against Mr. Bork were not noteworthy.
There are two Parties, and they should differ on some core beliefs. If not, what is the point of two Parties?
At times the differences are fundamental, but at other times, the Parties are just playing politics. And if observers cast aspersions in response, observers themselves are also being political. In this case, change the Party affiliations of the major actors, and you get a mirror image of what is taking place now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/22/in-1992-joe-...
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and to share your thoughts.
The six GOP senators who voted "no", with the exception of Senator Warner, had very low ratings with the American Conservative Union. The majority of these senators were/are essentially Democrats, and therefore, their votes against Mr. Bork were not noteworthy.
There are two Parties, and they should differ on some core beliefs. If not, what is the point of two Parties?
At times the differences are fundamental, but at other times, the Parties are just playing politics. And if observers cast aspersions in response, observers themselves are also being political. In this case, change the Party affiliations of the major actors, and you get a mirror image of what is taking place now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/22/in-1992-joe-...
Why the quotes around Republican? They were 100% Republican, from a time when Republicans did not have absolutist purity tests that government is evil, and party should take priority over country. When they encompassed a full range from liberal to extreme. When they squabbled but still worked together.
The "Republicans" today are the real outliers -- extremists running off the rails and blowing up, as all extreme movements must. Senator John Chafee was a good man and a good Senator who cared about the country. He'd be horrified at what the party has become -- and proud to shake our President's hand.
The "Republicans" today are the real outliers -- extremists running off the rails and blowing up, as all extreme movements must. Senator John Chafee was a good man and a good Senator who cared about the country. He'd be horrified at what the party has become -- and proud to shake our President's hand.
1
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM Is precisely what the GOP opposes by blocking the nomination of Hon Merrick Garland. Despite having public praise bestowed on him by none other than the repulsively hypocritical Orrin Hatch, he has done an about face saying that it would not be right to the American people to vote on a new Supreme Court Justice during the time of a poisonous election campaign. Joe Biden once spoke about the timing for the hearing for a Supreme Court nominee, recommending a delay of a month until after the nominating conventions, by all accounts a fair, reasonable, mature and respectful change. But the disgraceful actions of the preternaturally nasty Mitch McConnell to refuse to meet with Obama's nominee is an infantile tantrum writ large. Scalia was a prima donna who marched to the tune of his very own making in ways so extreme that his colleagues assigned the duty of writing opinions because they believed he could not control his hostility. He broke the mold. They'll not find another like him, thank goodness. His actions toward the end of his life were increasingly more aggressive, insulting and impulsive, all of which are characteristics of frontal lobe dementia. We certainly don't need another justice with a disabling medical condition. Obama showed great respect for the GOP by choosing a nominee known both for his brilliant legal mind and fairness in his decisions with no regard for politics. Let's Bork Garland. A week of hearings then an up or down vote.
6
Is it me or is originalism the same approach that ISIS uses to interpret the Quran?
9
This Republican intransigence will have the effect of destroying the efficacy of the Supreme Court for two years. The Court term begins on the first Monday in October. For the current term significant cases that need to be decided will remain undecided in the event of a 4-4 vote. For the next term, a new appointee may have to wait until late April, 2017 to join the Court. The Republicans are destroying the purpose for which the Court exists.... to enlighten our society on what the law is regarding the significant and contentious cases that the Court accepts for hearing. This is grossly unfair to the litigants and to our society as a whole. Resolution of these cases is needed. Justice delayed is justice denied.
6
Scalia was a player in the recent issuances of writs of certiorari (notices to hear cases) for hired-plaintiff test cases to undermine the ACA and promote distorted interpretations of religious liberty. What the Court will hear matters as much as what it rules in what it does hear.
1
I think it was actually Ted Cruz who first voiced the obstruction plan then McConnell followed suit.
The Tea Party will obstruct anything, including ANY court nomination- not to mention Trumps nomination- that diminishes the neo-cons domination of the GOP and the political process.
They will do everything to get Cruz nominated, Cruz as president, and then a Cruz court choice nominated.
The game is rigged, and that's what is at stake here- keeping it so by any means necessary.
The Tea Party will obstruct anything, including ANY court nomination- not to mention Trumps nomination- that diminishes the neo-cons domination of the GOP and the political process.
They will do everything to get Cruz nominated, Cruz as president, and then a Cruz court choice nominated.
The game is rigged, and that's what is at stake here- keeping it so by any means necessary.
4
These never-grew-ups believe their own verbalized thoughts are God whispering to them inside their heads.
2
Most of the recalcitrant senators are lawyers, McConnell included. To brazenly refuse to carry out a clearly defined duty under the Constitution is to breach the duty they signed a solemn oath to accept when they joined their state and federal district bar: to defend and protect that Constitution. DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS should be started immediately. How is this different from a president refusing to leave office at the end of his or her term?
8
I can not help but bring up Kennedys words in the same sex marriage
case, the idea we each create ourselves is as other worldly as could be.
Kennedy is considered moderate, but he changed western civilizations idea of what is real and what is not........Dostoevski wrote " two and two is five if I say so " ( the Devils ) NO it is not
so despite the awful Cruz , the dumb head of the Senate, etc all they have to do is vote down the nomination. law is not truth for sure, but at least it is an
obstacle to the irrational ........
case, the idea we each create ourselves is as other worldly as could be.
Kennedy is considered moderate, but he changed western civilizations idea of what is real and what is not........Dostoevski wrote " two and two is five if I say so " ( the Devils ) NO it is not
so despite the awful Cruz , the dumb head of the Senate, etc all they have to do is vote down the nomination. law is not truth for sure, but at least it is an
obstacle to the irrational ........
3
Republicans are too scared to fight. They know they'll lose, because the battles they pick are only losing ones. The party is self-immolating, and I couldn't be any happier. Madame President will make them regret not going with this mainstream guy...by nominating President Obama for SCOTUS!
7
President Obama has appointed the first of his three outstanding jurists for appointment to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Bench. Undoubtedly, Judge Merrick Garlan (a justice beyond reporach) will be "borked" as will the other two fine justices who will be appointed down the road should Justice Garland's appointtment be turned down by the Republican powers that be, Senator Mitch McConnell and his 54 closed Senators' doors. How nasty, how irresponsible, how common to the DO-NOTHING Congress President Obama has been forced to endure during his excellent 7 years in the Oval Office. Depressing, aren't they, the Republicans this year (and every year)?
Superb, Jordan Awan's marvelous and non-pareil illustration with Kilroy peering over the big red elephant's flank, looking toward the black empty chair of the Court wrapped in the protective bulk of the RED ELEPHANT (there is a red elephant in our living room now - Donald Trump - and if he makes it to the Presidency, one wonders whom he will pick to be "borked" by the next Senate).
Superb, Jordan Awan's marvelous and non-pareil illustration with Kilroy peering over the big red elephant's flank, looking toward the black empty chair of the Court wrapped in the protective bulk of the RED ELEPHANT (there is a red elephant in our living room now - Donald Trump - and if he makes it to the Presidency, one wonders whom he will pick to be "borked" by the next Senate).
3
Silence is consent, yes?
3
So, if it was President Romney rather then Obama, would they still be filibustering the nomination................ This is corrupt.
6
No thoughts. No talk. I am sending a contribution to the New Hampshire Democrats so that my neighbors can oust Republican Kelly Ayotte from the US Senate. Please do likewise to retake the Senate from these obstructionists.
10
Thank you for this excellent article. I am hoping CNN or MSNBC will rebroadcast the hearing the vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1987 and the proceeding on the floor of the Senate to expose the hypocrisy of McConnell and the republicans.
6
And wouldn't it just be a jolly kick in the teeth for the GOP obstructionists if their likely presidential nominee were to come out and say "Judge Garland is a great pick and if I win in November I will renominate him! Because he would be HUGE!
2
I hope Democrats will keep up the pressure. I have been to the WSJ pages and the people commenting there are determined they the Kenya, Muslim President will not be appointing a SCOTUS. The heck with the Constitution!
4
Everybody who wants to consider a nominee should consider voting in November. The decision can wait for the people to speak. We don't need President Obama slipping another "win" in through the cracks, like he did with the decisive Obamacare victory. John Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to support that, we need to make sure President Obama does not get to select John's new friend and ally on the Court. Mr. Garlan, you're likely a good man. Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? You've been played.
Some of the commenters seem to be missing the point Linda's making. It's not at all like the Bork hearings. Bork had hearings and a vote. He lost when the Senate did their job. The Republicans are refusing to let the Senate do their job this time. If they want a replay of Bork they'll have hearings and a vote. The truth is that they don't really want a replay, they only want to insult the President. It's about the man.
10
The only possible explanation for the unbelievably pathetic
arguments offered to justify what the little cabal of aging white guys from deep red southern states is doing is their firm
belief that there will be no price to pay in November. That is,
they are convinced that to offer such third grade level of argument
is perfectly acceptable to their constituents who don't trust Obama on
anything. It wouldn't even matter if every major newspaper in each
of the senate leadership's states would excoriate them over and over again for their historically idiotic ignorance and willful lying.
They simply don't care, and very little else will make them care since the money needed to
deluge media airwaves with the propaganda they intend to vomit out will be available by the hundreds of
millions of dollars, and they are confident that that will suffice to maintain
senate control.
And, really, what reason exists for feeling even a little queasy in this? Do polls detect anything but a purely partisan split on the latest
exhibition of governance by tantrum? Will the corporate media shils
and journalist hacks populating the fake news infotainment daily silliness
do anything but endlessly recycle their drivel, never allowing full and complete discussion of how utterly wrong all this is?
This is but the most current example how too much of the body politic
is infected with a spiritual/psychic disease that makes representative governance no longer possible.
arguments offered to justify what the little cabal of aging white guys from deep red southern states is doing is their firm
belief that there will be no price to pay in November. That is,
they are convinced that to offer such third grade level of argument
is perfectly acceptable to their constituents who don't trust Obama on
anything. It wouldn't even matter if every major newspaper in each
of the senate leadership's states would excoriate them over and over again for their historically idiotic ignorance and willful lying.
They simply don't care, and very little else will make them care since the money needed to
deluge media airwaves with the propaganda they intend to vomit out will be available by the hundreds of
millions of dollars, and they are confident that that will suffice to maintain
senate control.
And, really, what reason exists for feeling even a little queasy in this? Do polls detect anything but a purely partisan split on the latest
exhibition of governance by tantrum? Will the corporate media shils
and journalist hacks populating the fake news infotainment daily silliness
do anything but endlessly recycle their drivel, never allowing full and complete discussion of how utterly wrong all this is?
This is but the most current example how too much of the body politic
is infected with a spiritual/psychic disease that makes representative governance no longer possible.
8
It matters little in practical terms that the Senate's on-the-merits rejection of Bork's nomination in 1986 isn't remotely like the current Republican majority's stark refusal to afford Judge Garland even the minimal courtesy of the face-to-face visits by a prospective nominee that have traditionally preceded consideration of the candidate in committee and then on the floor of the Senate. For the first time in a generation, Republicans fear the loss of their 5-4 majority on issues central to their ideological agenda, from reproductive rights to campaign finance, voting rights, labor unions and public access to the courts. They should stop trying to justify this attempt to dress up a naked power grab as a principled appeal to fairness. The American people aren't buying.
6
The Senate Republicans think they are protecting the Supreme Court for conservatives, but they are wrong. Conservatives lost their power over the court the moment Scalia died and the vote became 4-4. Now Obama nominates a moderate Democrat and the Republicans don't have the decency to even meet with him. This makes the GOP look as bad as Trump being their '16 nominee as this is proof of obstructionism which will be repeated in the general election repeatedly. I hope Obama appoints Garland next Jan. 3 when the Senate is in recess and cannot block him. But if not, I hope President Hillary will appoint some other judge who is more liberal after the Democrats retake the Senate.
5
Yes, the Democrats gave Bork a hearing ... after months. If Mx Garland hasn't received a hearing in four months, you might have a point. Talk to me in July.
As it happens, the Democrats blocked all court nominees by Bush in 2007 and 2008, slots filled by Obamaites. Leave it to the Demmys to try to get ten years out of an eight year presidency. President Trump will find a good candidate and if Garland is as good as they say no doubt Trump will consider him.
As it happens, the Democrats blocked all court nominees by Bush in 2007 and 2008, slots filled by Obamaites. Leave it to the Demmys to try to get ten years out of an eight year presidency. President Trump will find a good candidate and if Garland is as good as they say no doubt Trump will consider him.
It's really time for McConnell to be impeached. He is completely derelect in his
duty, is and has been a leader in the obstruction movement to deny our President anything , and there is a long history, eight years, of his disrespect
and manuvering to destroy a current president. Time he paid for his crimes.
duty, is and has been a leader in the obstruction movement to deny our President anything , and there is a long history, eight years, of his disrespect
and manuvering to destroy a current president. Time he paid for his crimes.
3
P. Kay:
The obstruction movement was initiated by Ted Cruz who may become the Republican elite's brokered nomination for President.
The obstruction movement was initiated by Ted Cruz who may become the Republican elite's brokered nomination for President.
Funny. I'm actually in agreement with McConnell on this. Let the people decide. They should decide to elect a Democrat for President and to all of the contested Senate seats. Then we can nominate a Justice - or two, or three.
2
It's NOT and elected office! The people's elected president along with elected senators SHALL affirm the appointment of the new Justice.
We, the people, did decide when we elected Obama to a 2nd four year term.
7
The people DID decide: they re-elected President Obama by an overwhelming electoral majority (in sports terms, it would be considered a "blow out").
The constitution provides that the president - that would be President Obama, elected twice by the people of this country - nominate someone, and that the Senate "advise and consent." There is nothing - not. one. thing - in the constitution about waiting for a president potentially more politically aligned with the Senate majority before filling a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.
The constitution provides that the president - that would be President Obama, elected twice by the people of this country - nominate someone, and that the Senate "advise and consent." There is nothing - not. one. thing - in the constitution about waiting for a president potentially more politically aligned with the Senate majority before filling a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.
5
This is once again all about the Black Man in the White House. The modern GOP was founded on racism, albeit it spoken in code or via dog whistles until Trump came along. First, there was Nixon's southern strategy of appealing to southern whites upset with the idea of civil rights for the descendants of slaves, which eventually led to Ronald Reagan and Willie Horton and welfare queens. Then there was "You lie!" at the state of the union. Now there's this.
3
Ms. Greenhouse ignores the fact that today's GOP
is a collection of vandals and saboteurs. They cannot
abide a black man in the White House.
is a collection of vandals and saboteurs. They cannot
abide a black man in the White House.
4
The author makes the senate's point: What's good for the goose...
The senate is following the 'Biden Rule': No SC appointments for the final 18 months of the presidency.
Sounds like a plan.
The senate is following the 'Biden Rule': No SC appointments for the final 18 months of the presidency.
Sounds like a plan.
1
Anyone who has been following politics for the last eight years have heard the multi-talented Mitch McConnell's One Note Band, which began the gig with its most acclaimed hit, the ironically-named "One Term President," and has featured such tunes as "No Way We Pay For The ACA" and "Adam and Steve Can Find Another Baker," "Benghazi So Long It Looks Like Up To Me," and "A Master Cannot Have Two Servers," has now dropped its long-awaited "Where Will All The Garlands Go" in the key of Bork.
We try to be polite about the stark differences in how each side would like to shape the future, but here's what it comes down to:
On the Court, would you rather see a new Justice who protects women's rights to make their own reproductive decisions or one who imposes religious imagination on public reality?
Would you rather see a new Justice who reads the Second Amendment as if he or she has no appreciation that conditions have radically changed over the last 200 years, that entreating citizens to keep their muskets nearby in case the redcoats came back or the slaves got restless is poles apart from standing back like drunk parents as the children spray Uzi fire?
Would you rather see a new Justice who views religious freedom as the freedom to keep one's own counsel, to maintain one's own beliefs rather than impose the supernatural on a very real world where water is becoming scarce and the planet is warming?
Remember Mitch and his combo when you vote this November. Encore? I think not.
We try to be polite about the stark differences in how each side would like to shape the future, but here's what it comes down to:
On the Court, would you rather see a new Justice who protects women's rights to make their own reproductive decisions or one who imposes religious imagination on public reality?
Would you rather see a new Justice who reads the Second Amendment as if he or she has no appreciation that conditions have radically changed over the last 200 years, that entreating citizens to keep their muskets nearby in case the redcoats came back or the slaves got restless is poles apart from standing back like drunk parents as the children spray Uzi fire?
Would you rather see a new Justice who views religious freedom as the freedom to keep one's own counsel, to maintain one's own beliefs rather than impose the supernatural on a very real world where water is becoming scarce and the planet is warming?
Remember Mitch and his combo when you vote this November. Encore? I think not.
1
Where's Chief Justice Roberts in all of this? He's the head of a co-equal branch of government and perhaps should have a say in this unfolding drama. After all, it's his court.
3
Anyone who has been following politics for the last eight years has heard the multi-talented Mitch McConnell's One Note Band, which began its gig with the acclaimed hit, the ironically-named "One Term President," and has featured such tunes as "No Way We Pay For The ACA," "Adam and Steve Can Find Another Baker," "Benghazi So Long It Looks Like Up To Me," and "A Master Cannot Have Two Servers," and has now dropped its long-awaited "Where Will All The Garlands Go" in the key of Bork. Kudos.
We try to be polite about the stark differences in how each side would like to shape the future, but here's what it comes down to:
On the Court, would you rather see a new Justice who protects women's rights to make their own reproductive decisions or one who imposes religious imagination on public reality?
Would you rather see a new Justice who reads the Second Amendment as if he or she has no appreciation that conditions have radically changed over the last 200 years, that entreating citizens to keep their muskets nearby in case the redcoats came back or the slaves got restless is poles apart from standing back like drunk parents as the children spray Uzi fire?
Would you rather see a new Justice who views religious freedom as the right to keep one's own counsel, to maintain one's own beliefs rather than impose the supernatural on a very real world where water is becoming scarce and the planet is warming?
Remember Mitch and his combo when you vote this November. Encore? I think not.
We try to be polite about the stark differences in how each side would like to shape the future, but here's what it comes down to:
On the Court, would you rather see a new Justice who protects women's rights to make their own reproductive decisions or one who imposes religious imagination on public reality?
Would you rather see a new Justice who reads the Second Amendment as if he or she has no appreciation that conditions have radically changed over the last 200 years, that entreating citizens to keep their muskets nearby in case the redcoats came back or the slaves got restless is poles apart from standing back like drunk parents as the children spray Uzi fire?
Would you rather see a new Justice who views religious freedom as the right to keep one's own counsel, to maintain one's own beliefs rather than impose the supernatural on a very real world where water is becoming scarce and the planet is warming?
Remember Mitch and his combo when you vote this November. Encore? I think not.
6
The excellent Ms. Greenhouse offers reasoning where none applies. I thank her for it nevertheless. NOBODY except the most deluded can believe that the Republican opposition is anything but another malicious attempt to deny our president once again.
2
The Republicans in the Senate need to adhere to the Rubio Rule:
In your last year of a 6 year term, you neither show up for work nor cast any votes.
That will leave it to the Democrats to act, and they can make whatever rules for quorums and voting that are needed to do the people's business.
The Republicans should be more careful in their practice of declaring "RULES."
In your last year of a 6 year term, you neither show up for work nor cast any votes.
That will leave it to the Democrats to act, and they can make whatever rules for quorums and voting that are needed to do the people's business.
The Republicans should be more careful in their practice of declaring "RULES."
1
"Bring It On"
Linda Greenhouse is so funny. She actually thinks that the Senate will even acknowledge Obama's nominee. This is not only payback for the great Robert Bork, but payback for the way Clarence Thomas was treated and the way the country has been treated these past 7 years by the most JV, inept, divisive, lawless leader this country ever had. Democrats, you reap what you sow.
Linda Greenhouse is so funny. She actually thinks that the Senate will even acknowledge Obama's nominee. This is not only payback for the great Robert Bork, but payback for the way Clarence Thomas was treated and the way the country has been treated these past 7 years by the most JV, inept, divisive, lawless leader this country ever had. Democrats, you reap what you sow.
2
Is THAT why I should vote Republican -- because they hold grudges? Are sore losers? Don't care about how government operates so long as they get payback for hurt feelings? Because they refuse to work with a black man as President, and demean him at every opportunity?
What world do you live in?
I did not vote for a single one of these obstructive Senators. I did vote for the President, no matter what you may think of him. And so did a majority of Americans along with me. TWICE. Believe what you want to believe about him, but don't delude yourself that America is on your side.
What world do you live in?
I did not vote for a single one of these obstructive Senators. I did vote for the President, no matter what you may think of him. And so did a majority of Americans along with me. TWICE. Believe what you want to believe about him, but don't delude yourself that America is on your side.
3
So interesting, history. Thank you for the primer. And now that the facts are known, I hope the powers that be (think Obama) will follow your advice and brin up Bork history and educate the public on the facts.
It would be delicious. And maybe it would be effective too. Can't hurt to try.
It would be delicious. And maybe it would be effective too. Can't hurt to try.
The Republican Party has degenerated into a bunch of cynical sore losers
2
Could someone please explain to us how "the people" have no voice in the nomination right now? Couldn't anyone with a view contact their elected Senator? Has mass communication been blocked? Have Senators stopped listening to those whom they are supposed to represent?
2
Republicans have a real shambles on their hands with Trump. But that's not enough to keep their simple minds occupied. They want to double down on their hopeless scenario for the Fall election by committing the last obstruction to President Obama in denying him a Supreme Court nomination. So be it.
Yes, bring it on, GOP, just keep digging that hole even deeper.
We'll be seeing you in November.
DD
Manhattan
Yes, bring it on, GOP, just keep digging that hole even deeper.
We'll be seeing you in November.
DD
Manhattan
1
But this is how the Republicans now deal with every issue or concern of the American people---don't talk, don't legislate, just don't do anything. This country has serious problems, which are solvable, if our legislative bodies, would show up to work.
3
It's a pleasure to read this essay, but I keep feeling that simple. historic, obvious facts, shared by like-minded Democrats, have no more force than a pretty herd of butterflies. How can we organize? What needs to be done NOW?
2
You cannot reason with republicans because their position does not come from reason.The only remedy is the ballot box and that is too late for Obama. The rank racism Obama's presence has provoked is not surprising and I believe the right thinks they have taught us a lesson. Perhaps?
1
McConnell's representation of the Republican Party's view on governance is a continuation of the policies that is now tearing the Party in all directions. They're either going to right (meaning center the ballast of their ship) their ship by force, not the democratic process or they will go down with the ship. Nuff said!.
Let the Republicans refuse to hold hearings. Then Hillary, with a Senate majority, will nominate Obama.
2
Letting them do this would be a very destructive precedent to set. Senatorial coups are a terrible idea for any party.
1
Seems to me that since the GOP Senators have gone AWOL, they should simply be counted as absent when a committee meets to have a hearing on Obama's nominee. Then a vote can be taken. And the Justice sworn in.
GOP is upset? Too bad! AWOL loses!
GOP is upset? Too bad! AWOL loses!
8
When MitchMc says "the American people" should have a say in next SCOTUS appointment, he means (hopes) the Republican party should.
And Joe Biden's speech about not considering an appointment during an election year is not the test on hearings, it is Mitch's counter part - the majority leader, George Mitchell's, on hearings on the nominee!
Whose "leader" are you Senator McConell?
And Joe Biden's speech about not considering an appointment during an election year is not the test on hearings, it is Mitch's counter part - the majority leader, George Mitchell's, on hearings on the nominee!
Whose "leader" are you Senator McConell?
The hearings serve little purpose other than Senators’ grandstanding. Since Bork, no nominee has anything to say. When a nominee is asked about past cases, he will respect them. When asked about current cases, he won’t comment. When asked about future cases, he doesn’t deal in hypotheticals. When asked about anything else, he hasn’t thought about it. (The most important issues of the day—and he hasn’t thought about them.) Garland’s qualifications are not in question, nor are they the issue, but a Supreme Court seat is not a lifetime achievement award. Yet we wouldn’t be missing much by not hearing from him.
1
The Senate’s duties include the obligation to check and balance other parts of the federal government; for that reason the President can appoint people to certain positions, including the Supreme Court, only “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” So the question is really whether the Senate may, in its discretion, fulfill its “checks and balance” obligation by refusing to consider a presidential nominee. Put another way, does the Senate’s refusal under such circumstances serve as its “advice” to the President; and given that advice is it necessary to proceed further? Let’s look to what that well-known Constitutional maven, Harry Reid, had to say when Samuel Alito’s nomination was the before the Senate.
"The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States," Reid said then. "Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote," he went on. "It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying every nominee receives a vote." He added, "The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch."
But even without Senator Reid’s guidance, the answer is obvious. What the Senate is now doing is constitutionally permissible. Whether it is politically prudent is another question entirely. What we are witnessing is a political chess match, and anyone who thinks the President is not a willing player is rather naïve…
"The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States," Reid said then. "Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote," he went on. "It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying every nominee receives a vote." He added, "The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch."
But even without Senator Reid’s guidance, the answer is obvious. What the Senate is now doing is constitutionally permissible. Whether it is politically prudent is another question entirely. What we are witnessing is a political chess match, and anyone who thinks the President is not a willing player is rather naïve…
This is a Republican coup, nothing less.
To all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States and to all whoever sacrificed their life for our liberty and our way of government throughout our history, here is the result of your sacrifice.
One of our political parties has looked at your heroic efforts and has said, "Go to ----. We don't observe the constitution you fought for"
We make our own rules, your sacrifice is nothing to us anymore.
To all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States and to all whoever sacrificed their life for our liberty and our way of government throughout our history, here is the result of your sacrifice.
One of our political parties has looked at your heroic efforts and has said, "Go to ----. We don't observe the constitution you fought for"
We make our own rules, your sacrifice is nothing to us anymore.
7
Bork said: The upper middle class is impressing it's values on the middle class and the lower middle class. What's wrong with that?
Thank You Ms. Greenhouse, I had forgotten the details but I knew it was a matter of his record and his hearing that lead to his downfall and not as the Orrin Hatch's would have us believe Judge Bork being treated unfairly or as Mitch McConnell would have us believe the POTUS does not deserve to appoint a justice.
The fact is the GOP turned Judge Bork's name into a verb, as they resentfully built up the false legend of his denial over time and the false telling and false re-telling of this false story always adding more hate andf anger at the false unfairness of it all.
The fact is the GOP turned Judge Bork's name into a verb, as they resentfully built up the false legend of his denial over time and the false telling and false re-telling of this false story always adding more hate andf anger at the false unfairness of it all.
2
As I recall from the time Scalia was in comparison to Bork a much more "centrist" fellow. We all know now what Scalia was all about but at the time Bork was to his right, or at least that is how it appeared when Scalia came up to be confirmed thus his getting past the Committee where Bork did not is explained.
As I've stated before, I love Linda Greenhouse, she was a guest lecturer for my American Judiciary class at Harvard back in 2001. Wise, whip smart and a great observer of the Supreme Court. Until now.
The Bork argument isn't even the best argument the Republicans have for refusing to hold hearings to consider Judge Garland, someone that I, as a Black attorney in Washington DC, respect and admire. I feel a great deal of sadness that Obama has twisted Garland's arm enough to force him onto the altar of sacrifice.
The Biden Rule is the best argument the GOP leadership can use, along with Obama's attempt to filibuster Justice Alito.
Obama's fallacy that what the GOP is doing is unprecedented, fails instantly under the weight of his own actions, and Biden's words. Moreover, Obama should know this as a law school graduate--that Article II "advice and consent" of judicial nominees is governed by the Senate's broad powers to make it as complex as hearings or as simple as "no." Again, Obama's contention the Senate is abdicating its duty and failing to give advice and consent is also a fallacy.
What Obama should "bring on" if he believes he has divine authority exceeding what the Constitution grants--if Obama's argument is the Senate is creating an constitutional crisis, then Obama should make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court of someone Obama wants there--and then face impeachment.
As lawyers we are trained to defend our position. Obama should defend his. Now.
The Bork argument isn't even the best argument the Republicans have for refusing to hold hearings to consider Judge Garland, someone that I, as a Black attorney in Washington DC, respect and admire. I feel a great deal of sadness that Obama has twisted Garland's arm enough to force him onto the altar of sacrifice.
The Biden Rule is the best argument the GOP leadership can use, along with Obama's attempt to filibuster Justice Alito.
Obama's fallacy that what the GOP is doing is unprecedented, fails instantly under the weight of his own actions, and Biden's words. Moreover, Obama should know this as a law school graduate--that Article II "advice and consent" of judicial nominees is governed by the Senate's broad powers to make it as complex as hearings or as simple as "no." Again, Obama's contention the Senate is abdicating its duty and failing to give advice and consent is also a fallacy.
What Obama should "bring on" if he believes he has divine authority exceeding what the Constitution grants--if Obama's argument is the Senate is creating an constitutional crisis, then Obama should make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court of someone Obama wants there--and then face impeachment.
As lawyers we are trained to defend our position. Obama should defend his. Now.
1
Thank you, Linda Greenhouse, for a good op ed piece. The irony of insisting that a custom of delaying a vote on a nominee until the next president is elected should be used to replace a Justice with originalist philosophy is high. Especially since the person is to have the same philosophy plus assuredly vote "correctly." Just as ironic, some say there could be a vote on Judge Garland after the election if Hillary (or Bernie) wins, but an R would probably want to pick his own person. This, presumably, would be a vote to keep the D winner from nominating a person guaranteed to support all liberal issues, who would be the mirror of the dream-Scalia-replacement. I don't recollect seeing in the US Constitution, delay, obstruct, ignore, choose only judges who will "correctly" vote on cases, but perhaps it is there somewhere along side the very clear "advise and consent". Advise seems to mean to say something about the candidate like - the guy doesn't have a judicial temperament. Or, his Harvard undergrad, Harvard law education isn't good enough for the court. Credentials for the position is key. Then, consent - vote. Vote yes to put him (or her) on the court or no. Unfortunately, this isn't the first judicial slowdown - look at all the empty federal judicial positions, waiting for the "right" president to pick the "right" person. Some of the other positions - labor board vacancies, were equally hard to fill. No wonder people look to a dictator type to make things work.
My apologies. I just sent in a badly-edited comment. Please dispose of it. I will edit the copy and re-submit. Again, sorry.
Many explanations for the Republican position and they all boil down to the fact that the RNC considers the Obama Presidency illegitimate. All the rest is commentary. The RNC has not, and will never consider Obama (and perhaps any Democrat) to be a legitimate President. They demand the once promised "Permanent Majority" for the RNC.
1
It's very clarifying to see a man like Trump become the avatar of conservatism. He is the embodiment of the Picture of Dorian Gray-- revealing the true character of the Republican Party, long hidden behind the facade of men like Ronald Reagan.
3
Again, a marvelous analysis by Ms. Greenhouse, and with not much of her "liberal" propensities showing. As other comments have said, the people have decided by electing President Obama twice.
Well done Ms. Greenhouse. A most accurate account of juxtaposing (and exposing) events pertaining to the Bork & Garland nominations. This is yet again another instance of Republican attempts to abscribe their actions to supposed previous Democrat positions.
Most importantly, pieces like yours serves the educating process for the younger readers who may not be entirely familiar with the Bork hearings and maybe prone to giving McConnell and his minions benefit of argument. Thanks.
Most importantly, pieces like yours serves the educating process for the younger readers who may not be entirely familiar with the Bork hearings and maybe prone to giving McConnell and his minions benefit of argument. Thanks.
The Constitution does not allow for the People of the USA to vote on the members of the SCOTUS. It is for the President to nominate and the Senate to deliberate, not obstruct. The President has been voted in to office, twice and very convincingly.
Time for Mitch McConnell to get off his obstructionist path and let the Senate vote on the nomination. Never mind it is the best the GOP can do for years to come ( for ever?). Once again the GOP does a disservice to its shrinking base.
Time for Mitch McConnell to get off his obstructionist path and let the Senate vote on the nomination. Never mind it is the best the GOP can do for years to come ( for ever?). Once again the GOP does a disservice to its shrinking base.
2
I'm sure that Bork died a very happy man. He lived to see the Equal Rights Amendment thrown out, to see abortion restricted in state after state, to see the 'mainstream' become a backwater. He would have chortled over Hobby Lobby and Citizens United and delighted in the perversion of 'non-profits' by the Koch Bros. The Georgia legislature, today, passing its bill to have religious non-profits to legally discriminate (on my dime) could only have brought a tear to his eye.
Our 'mainstream' has become a backed-up sewer.
Too bad that 'Joe the Plummer' was only a Republican shill.
Our 'mainstream' has become a backed-up sewer.
Too bad that 'Joe the Plummer' was only a Republican shill.
4
I suggest the Democrat Senators meet with the nominee and do a straw poll vote. If they support a moderate eminently qualified jurist for the open position it then becomes clear that the ONLY stumbling block is Constitution-hating and Obama-hating GOP Senators elevating duty to the party line over the interests of the country and against their vow upon being inaugurated to defend the very Constitution their inaction and intransigence is spitting upon.
2
The Republican's unilateral censorship approach on this issue and on all nominees smacks of the kinds of tantrums one expects from monarchists, not republicans. Spoiled bullies, taking all the marbles and going home? Unacceptable!
2
If "Bork" is to be a verb, it seems to me it ought to be what Reagan tried to do to the Constitution and Congress.
The verb has an unpleasant and aggressive sound to it, as befits that axe-wielding and, we later found out, brain-damaged President's intentions.
-dlj.
The verb has an unpleasant and aggressive sound to it, as befits that axe-wielding and, we later found out, brain-damaged President's intentions.
-dlj.
Words cannot describe the shame. Of course there should be hearings, and then a vote. But the Republican Party of today is apparently (a) unwilling to think that the Supreme Court is, or certainly should be, above politics, and (b) scared to death that if they allow a vote many of the Republican senators would end up voting to confirm Mr. Garland. I think the latter (b) is the governing factor. Shame, mental breakdown, whatever is going on is a disgrace to any thinking man or woman in this country, and a very direct threat to our democracy.
2
According to NYT: "Mr. McConnell said Republicans planned to move on with other important legislative business."
WHY? Doesn't he realize that "the People" need a "voice" in this important legislation, by first electing Senators and Representatives in November? Shouldn't Congress just go home and wait until after the election and the swearing in of new Members? Isn't that the logical extension of his argument? No Democrat should return to Congress from Easter recess; let the rump Congress do whatever it wants. Obama will veto all of it, and he won't be overridden, because the Democrats would return for those votes. Disgusting, that it's come to this.
WHY? Doesn't he realize that "the People" need a "voice" in this important legislation, by first electing Senators and Representatives in November? Shouldn't Congress just go home and wait until after the election and the swearing in of new Members? Isn't that the logical extension of his argument? No Democrat should return to Congress from Easter recess; let the rump Congress do whatever it wants. Obama will veto all of it, and he won't be overridden, because the Democrats would return for those votes. Disgusting, that it's come to this.
2
Professor Greenhouse gives us all an important reminder about the Bork confirmation-hearings, which I watched, transfixed, from gavel to gavel (did they have a gavel?). Joe Biden's exasperated, yet polite question, "Does the Ninth Amendment mean anything?" stands out in my memory. So does the fact that Bork would overturn not only Roe v. Wade, but Griswold v. Connecticut: I wonder how many people can picture this smug, condescending presence blithely announcing that he'd prevent MARRIED COUPLES from using contraceptives. Even the Pope has moved beyond that rigid orthodoxy--at least in times of viral epidemics. I think there's a lot of naive trust that nothing attempted, or prevented, by the Mitch McConnells of the world can really affect our daily lives--to the point of deciding what we can and cannot do in our own bedrooms. Scalia was there, though, in Lawrence v. Texas. Do we really want to go there again???
4
I am as conservative as they come. However, to fail to examine, interview, and give a fair and full review to the President's nominee for the Suprime Court would be a dereliction of duty for purely political reasons. Play nice children, and do the job we sent you do do no play fast and lose with the Constitution and our laws.
1
Ms. Greenhouse probably should have also mentioned that Mr. Bork, as acting solicitor general, fired Archibald Cox, essentially to protect President Nixon from being forced to turn over those incriminating tapes which ultimately led to his resignation.
1
The GOP senators are dishonoring Justice Scalia's legacy as a constitutional 'originalist' by playing games with the constitution over the appointment of Judge Garland.
The Republican death grip (nod to Charleton Heston) of the Second Amendment is blatantly hypocritical when viewed in contrast with their cavalier disregard of clearly defined constitutional duties in regard to Supreme Court appointments.
Although Republicans are not alone in manipulating the Constitution for political reasons, they appear to be experts at this sort of cynical ploy.
Senator McConnell and company, can you at least admit your aim is to continue to obstruct anything President Obama attempts and that this is nothing but a bald political attempt, under cover of an election year, to preserve the conservative majority that has dominated the Court for decades? You and your fellow obstructionists do not have a shred of credibility with a very large segment of the people.
The Republican death grip (nod to Charleton Heston) of the Second Amendment is blatantly hypocritical when viewed in contrast with their cavalier disregard of clearly defined constitutional duties in regard to Supreme Court appointments.
Although Republicans are not alone in manipulating the Constitution for political reasons, they appear to be experts at this sort of cynical ploy.
Senator McConnell and company, can you at least admit your aim is to continue to obstruct anything President Obama attempts and that this is nothing but a bald political attempt, under cover of an election year, to preserve the conservative majority that has dominated the Court for decades? You and your fellow obstructionists do not have a shred of credibility with a very large segment of the people.
1
It should be clear to all by now that rationality and reasonableness have no bearing on republican choices. Whatever pushed this party over the edge, it is apparently an untreatable condition. Folks should keep this in mind when voting.
2
There are schools filled with kindergartner classes with more integrity than this crop of Republican senators. They don't want to any Obama SC nominee to appear for questioning because they know Garland would deliver flawless testimony with little to which they could object.
The GOP senators are a weak lot and they know it.
Just like a spouse or partner who gives the silent treatment - that's exactly how immature people behave.
The GOP senators are a weak lot and they know it.
Just like a spouse or partner who gives the silent treatment - that's exactly how immature people behave.
So the Republicans are saying, "Democrats did it to Bork, so we should do it to President Obama's nominee," whatever they decide "it" is. They should listen to themselves, and how ridiculous they sound. When I was growing up, my father often said, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Even if Democrats had done something wrong with Supreme Court nominees, which they haven't, Republicans need to get over it and behave like adults. They are still seeking revenge for Nixon's forced resignation as well.
Obama's Garland "nomination" is a nothing more than crass political calculation with electoral advantage the goal.
Garland, himself, is a witting actor in a farce that only adds to the marginalization of the court. One has to wonder why such a smart judge would go along with Obama's cynical ploy that can only relegate him to Borkian footnote status.
Garland, himself, is a witting actor in a farce that only adds to the marginalization of the court. One has to wonder why such a smart judge would go along with Obama's cynical ploy that can only relegate him to Borkian footnote status.
1
Historia docet. "History teaches," Ms. Greenhouse, and you're exactly right to provide your excellent synopsis of the Bork episode for contemporary contextual comparison. It seems our hyper-partisan politics, especially as practiced by the increasingly out-of-touch right, is accompanied by selective memory loss and an exceptional narrowing of interest to the present time and self. In this way, the so-called GOP establishment and Trump are exactly the same. Only because some GOP senators are standing for re-election, though, will this matter. The others are so far gone that they're living in an alternate reality.
1
I hope that all major media outlets keep pressure on the Senate to do what it should: allow Judge Garland to go through a constitutionally sanctioned process.
Whatever that historical outcome, the late Judge Bork was allowed the process.
The partisan lens is unavoidable and longstanding, as has been repeatedly emphasized during the last two days. The SCOTUS is subject to the same public media scrutiny as Congress, although even at 30% the court's recent approval ratings are far better than the Senate and House. If public pressure escalates, Senator McConnell and his co-conspirators may gradually back off their position. We can all hope The McConnell Gang loses their gambit.
Whatever that historical outcome, the late Judge Bork was allowed the process.
The partisan lens is unavoidable and longstanding, as has been repeatedly emphasized during the last two days. The SCOTUS is subject to the same public media scrutiny as Congress, although even at 30% the court's recent approval ratings are far better than the Senate and House. If public pressure escalates, Senator McConnell and his co-conspirators may gradually back off their position. We can all hope The McConnell Gang loses their gambit.
Merrick Garland is pro-business (anti-consumer), or so I understand. If true, he will be confirmed. This is what the puppet masters will want. Not even Mitch McConnell is willing to upset the money gods and risk cutting off or restricting their Party's financial pipeline.
We will have a few weeks of political theater, there will be grudging acquiescence disguised as bluster, hearings will follow, and surprise, a narrow decision by the Judiciary Committee to recommend confirmation, wherein it will be sent to the Senate for a full vote. There we will see a face saving close vote along party lines with a few votes from "safe" Republicans, but Garland will be confirmed by the Senate quickly to avoid any political fallout on closely contested Senate races this fall. The stench of politics as usual in the capitol of corporate America. 8:46 EST
We will have a few weeks of political theater, there will be grudging acquiescence disguised as bluster, hearings will follow, and surprise, a narrow decision by the Judiciary Committee to recommend confirmation, wherein it will be sent to the Senate for a full vote. There we will see a face saving close vote along party lines with a few votes from "safe" Republicans, but Garland will be confirmed by the Senate quickly to avoid any political fallout on closely contested Senate races this fall. The stench of politics as usual in the capitol of corporate America. 8:46 EST
3
We can go farther back to the nomination of Abe Fortas to see when politics entered the court nomination process. Or even farther back, to when the Impeach Warren campaign put up billboards across the South. Or to the FDR "court packing" story. In short, Republican arguments for holding on the nomination process make no sense and cannot be justified in any way. If they don't like the "toxic" presidential campaign, they should straighten up their party and the Tea Party movement which is behind all of it. The Republican party has been reduced to saying, "don't elect another African American President or we'll do this again.
It is obvious that when the majority leader raised his hand to swear the oath of office, he either lied or did not understand the meaning and obligations of that oath. If this continues, he, and others backing his sedition, should be impeached and removed from office.
1
I never see it written when Bork is brought up, but I remember that Bork was the acting Solicitor General who allowed the Saturday Night Massacre in Nixon's administration where the special prosecutors were fired by Nixon so they would stop investigating Watergate. This is never mentioned as a reason Bork was voted down, but I have a feeling it was important to the bi-partisan group of senators who said no to Bork's nomination.
2
Whatever happens, Judge Garland has already done one more service to the country by merely accepting to be nominated in such an obnoxious, divisive and obstructionist Republican driven environment.
His nomination is used, at his expense, by both sides, as a pawn in a petty game.
His acceptance speaks tons about his civic spirit.
His nomination is used, at his expense, by both sides, as a pawn in a petty game.
His acceptance speaks tons about his civic spirit.
1
I think the broader context of this, which I haven't seen discussed, is the fact that at least since the Clinton Administration the Republicans have done their best to block virtually all Democratic appointments to the Federal Judiciary.
It's amazing to me that R Senators are trying to claim it's a matter of principle to not consider a nominee. What principle is that, exactly?
Alas they, and their constituents, live in a fact-free world, where naked partisanship can be somehow dressed in the bunting of principle. Even in the face of obvious naked calculation - if a D wins, then we'll consider him in the months between election and inauguration, but if WE win, then no - that ridiculous statement about principle gets air time. So, let's parse this "principle" - Judge Garland's credentials undergo a miraculous transformation depending on the outcome of the presidential election?
Press, do your job! It ain't principle, or precedent, and it needs to be called out, loud and clear.
Alas they, and their constituents, live in a fact-free world, where naked partisanship can be somehow dressed in the bunting of principle. Even in the face of obvious naked calculation - if a D wins, then we'll consider him in the months between election and inauguration, but if WE win, then no - that ridiculous statement about principle gets air time. So, let's parse this "principle" - Judge Garland's credentials undergo a miraculous transformation depending on the outcome of the presidential election?
Press, do your job! It ain't principle, or precedent, and it needs to be called out, loud and clear.
Movement conservatives are frantically flailing to stay within reach of the golden goose they've been trying to catch for years. Their refusal to confirm a justice has less to do with race than with power: one-party Republican government for the foreseeable futue. Total control.
The Presidency in 2016 was the last branch they needed to complete the set. But then Scalia died, so even if they won the executive branch, they'd lose the judicial. Instantly, they concocted a bogus excuse not to confirm a justice until they has the Presidency. Flouting the Constitution is a trifle, compared to an opportunity to win the federal trifecta. Mischief managed . . . sort of.
In the meantime, the perpetually cheated base has started a revolt, led by a narcissistic huckster who saw his chance and leaped into the race. He's a yuge winner, but also far too unpredictable and uncontrollable. Like Frankenstein's monster, he must be destroyed, but how? The monster has them by the short hairs and won't let go . . . . .
We don't know how the story ends, but the moral is: Who seeks to grasp too much, ends by holding nothing.
The Presidency in 2016 was the last branch they needed to complete the set. But then Scalia died, so even if they won the executive branch, they'd lose the judicial. Instantly, they concocted a bogus excuse not to confirm a justice until they has the Presidency. Flouting the Constitution is a trifle, compared to an opportunity to win the federal trifecta. Mischief managed . . . sort of.
In the meantime, the perpetually cheated base has started a revolt, led by a narcissistic huckster who saw his chance and leaped into the race. He's a yuge winner, but also far too unpredictable and uncontrollable. Like Frankenstein's monster, he must be destroyed, but how? The monster has them by the short hairs and won't let go . . . . .
We don't know how the story ends, but the moral is: Who seeks to grasp too much, ends by holding nothing.
The twisted logic and complete departure from historical precedent, evidence, and truth is in line with McConnell's disrespect for President Obama. As this column reports, the references that Republican's employ to justify their abnegation of the Constitutional process have no resemblance to events that Republicans cite. President Obama's warning that "you can't make stuff up..." has not entered the consciousness of the press/media. He has repeated it up frequently throughout his years in office but it has been ignored. He may have to say: "That is a lie. There are no facts, there is no evidence to support this lie. Lies like this have the intent of misleading and deceiving Americans and is therefore a crime against democratic principles." What Republicans are attempting to do is to subvert the democratic process delineated in the Constitution and practiced throughout our history. Republican refusal to hold hearings and then vote on this nomination is illegal and poses a Constitutional crisis wherein the Senate seeks to usurp the prerogatives and responsibilities of the Executive. It cannot stand.
1
As one of the two bodies of the 1st branch of our government, the Senate is the master of its own decisions on how it chooses to exercise it powers enumerated in the Constitution - even to the extent of choosing to defer consideration of a SC nominee. The President, Greenhouse, segments of the public and even some members of the Senate may not like it, but such is the vast discretion afforded our Legislature. Case closed.
1
The Republican position is:
We have created a toxic environment in which we refuse to perform our constitutional duty to 'advise and consent' for a supreme court judge during the last year(s) (four years) of the term of a democratic (black) president.
We have created a toxic environment in which we refuse to perform our constitutional duty to 'advise and consent' for a supreme court judge during the last year(s) (four years) of the term of a democratic (black) president.
The Republican strategy in this imbroglio is to quote the so-called "Biden Rule," in which then Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden said that no nominee for SCOTUS should be considered during election season. Well, it isn't a rule in any sense of the word; that's a GOP propaganda term. Invoking Biden overlooks the more salient point that the nominee was given a hearing and a Senate vote and now sits on the Court bench. Thus, we have a situation in which a major political party, in control of the U.S. Senate, is using as its primary argument a fictional rule that didn't affect the situation then existing.
Sloppy work, that is, and the media covering this confrontation owes to its readers a full accounting of what precisely did happen and why the "Biden Rule" is a total chimera.
Sloppy work, that is, and the media covering this confrontation owes to its readers a full accounting of what precisely did happen and why the "Biden Rule" is a total chimera.
Yesterday, ten months before his term expires, the President of the United States, in accordance with his duties set forth in the Constitution, nominated an eminently-qualified judge to fill a vacancy in the highest court of the land. In response, the Senate Majority Leader took the Senate floor and called the nomination a political move and refused to consider the nomination on "principle". The final year in office "principle" is a smokescreen. The only principle that Mitch McConnell has adhered to is the denial the legitimacy of this President. Ronald Reagan appointed three justices to the Supreme Court; heaven forbid that Barack Obama should have the same legacy.
There are reports that the Republicans have offered to consider Judge Garland during the true lame duck session if a Democrat wins the presidency, (as opposed to this time before the election during which they have declared the president a lame duck many months early).
If a Democrat wins the election and it appears the Senate will change hands, President Obama should withdraw his nomination and let Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders nominate a younger, much more liberal candidate who will be confirmed. How satisfying to put at least one of the costs of delay and obstruction back on the Republicans themselves. I can't wait to see how Mitch McConnell, himself a lame duck majority leader, will explain how this was so good for the country.
If a Democrat wins the election and it appears the Senate will change hands, President Obama should withdraw his nomination and let Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Sanders nominate a younger, much more liberal candidate who will be confirmed. How satisfying to put at least one of the costs of delay and obstruction back on the Republicans themselves. I can't wait to see how Mitch McConnell, himself a lame duck majority leader, will explain how this was so good for the country.
1
Republicans will never allow a vote on Judge Garland because he seems to think deeply and rule fairly. What Republicans need is a candidate who will agree 100% with Justice Scalia that: (1) there's no constitutional right to abortion because the Constitution doesn't mention abortion; (2) there's no constitutional right to gay marriage because the Constitution doesn't mention marriage; and (3) it's unconstitutional to restrict political contributions because, although the Constitution doesn't mention political contributions, they're the same as "free speech" which the Constitution does protect.
The Bork nomination was the opening round of the largely successful attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of Richard Nixon, and in the process turn Watergate into a minor event unworthy of the impeachment process. Thus a generation of Americans have been raised on the spurious understanding that the coverup was worse than the crime, when in reality Nixon and his cabal sought to destroy the constitutionally protected liberties of the citizenry. Reagan could have nominated Elliot Richardson whose confirmation would have been easy. But that nomination would have angered the extreme right who would never forgive Richardson for removing from the office of the vice presidency a conservative hero, Spiro Agnew, whose criminal acts discredited him as well as the conservative movement. Hence, Reagan's choice was Bork whose complicity in Nixon's criminality was ignored, save for six Republicans who voted against him. No doubt RINOs before that slur was coined.
This is a Republican Party in its death throes, the party establishment striving for relevance in the face of rejection by its own constituents. What can the Republicans hope to accomplish with their intransigence? At best, the opportunity for Donald Trump to nominate the next Justice (his sister might not be a bad bet). The odds against the Republicans getting a conservative justice in the mold of Scalia simply don't justify the gambit here. This is a party so degraded and fractured that it can no longer function in its own best interest. Even the most partisan Democrat should be truly concerned for the survival of the GOP and our current two-party system.
Senate Republicans calling the open seat on the Supreme Court "Scalia's seat" says it all. They see this Supreme Court seat as belonging forevermore to conservative "originalist" Justice Scalia and only a nominee deemed sufficiently Scalia-like will be seated on the court as long as they have the majority. Judge Merrick B. Garland earned high praise from those refusing him consideration now.
It is also interesting that Republican Senators seem so confident they will be happier with "the peoples' choice" after November's presidential election than they are with the current and known choice of the people-President Obama. After all, the GOP establishment doesn't seem all that pleased with the candidates their own people are backing in the Republican presidential primary thus far. "Curiouser and curiouser"
It is also interesting that Republican Senators seem so confident they will be happier with "the peoples' choice" after November's presidential election than they are with the current and known choice of the people-President Obama. After all, the GOP establishment doesn't seem all that pleased with the candidates their own people are backing in the Republican presidential primary thus far. "Curiouser and curiouser"
Justifications for refusing to consider Judge Garland are just more examples of the propaganda Republicans have been using to undermine our democracy. They cannot prevail politically based upon fundamental principles of our government such as one-person-one-vote, so they have been acting un-democratically by gerrymandering congressional districts and restricting voting rights. Now they can't maintain control of the Supreme Court and support the Constitution they have long professed to revere. So, they are using propaganda, such as "let voters decide" to justify not performing their role to Advise and Consent, which is clearly proscribed by our Constitution. I doubt Americans will let them get away with behavior that so clearly violates the Constitution.
In addition to opposition from Democrats and Independents, their right wing has all but taken over the Republican Party. So, traditional Republicans don't have much left to hold onto.
It is time for the Republican Party to throw in the towel and re-make itself as a viable political party in this country.
In addition to opposition from Democrats and Independents, their right wing has all but taken over the Republican Party. So, traditional Republicans don't have much left to hold onto.
It is time for the Republican Party to throw in the towel and re-make itself as a viable political party in this country.
Forgetting the arguments about how Bork was characterized during and after the nomination process, the most salient point by Ms. Greenhouse is that Bork was given an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, which is precisely what Republicans are refusing to do. There was never a filibuster. What she does not mention is that six Republicans joined most Democrats in voting against the nomination. There were also some Democratic Senators who voted in favor of Bork, so it was not a strict party line vote. What McConnell and the Senate Republicans are doing takes obstruction to a whole new level.
I respectfully disagree with this characterization of the Bork controversy. True, from the standpoint of Democrats he was ideologically unacceptable and for good reason. But that's just half the story. Bork was a brilliant scholar and a former Yale Law School professor. He was eminently qualified to address the Supreme Court caseload. From the Republican standpoint, he had all the skills for the job and was being rejected on bare political grounds. Both parties had good reason to be deeply upset by the process. From the Republican point of view, in particular, they were denied a qualified nominee purely for political reasons. That is the same complaint that the Democrats are now advancing. When politics are the sole reason for opposing the nomination of an otherwise qualified nominee, the party denied its appointment is justifiably outraged. Whether the denial is by a lack of a hearing or a meaningless hearing is form over substance.
One way to move this nomination along would be for Hillary Clinton to announce that, if elected, she would appoint...Linda Greenhouse to the Court to fill the first vacancy she encounters, including the Scalia vacancy. There is no better spokesperson for the Constitution in particular, the law in general, or the right of the American people to receive a fair hearing and justice, than Ms. Greenhouse. A far better choice than a "hamletizing" Obama would be.
1
Why give Republican arguments for delay in considering Judge Garland's nomination any credence as principled, let alone persuasive? Delay is simply a Republican wager that the next election might give a Republican President the opportunity to nominate and a Republican Senate the opportunity to confirm the next Scalia.
1
A friend noted today that the Republican delay could be devastating, should Mrs. Clinton be president. He said, "She could nominate Al Sharpton. Wouldn't that be fun to watch?"
That aisde, it's rather shameful to watch Republicans act the way they have been of late and I think the pressure will build for them to take up the nomination, not because they want too, but because of the consequences inaction will have on the election. The Senate could be gone from their grasp and Mr. McConnell can go back to obstructing from the miniorithy side as he did for so many years.
That aisde, it's rather shameful to watch Republicans act the way they have been of late and I think the pressure will build for them to take up the nomination, not because they want too, but because of the consequences inaction will have on the election. The Senate could be gone from their grasp and Mr. McConnell can go back to obstructing from the miniorithy side as he did for so many years.
As always Linda advances a perfectly cool reasoned argument for why the Republicans should entertain Obama's nominee.
From the moment Obama was elected Republicans have been obsessed with turning their backs on the people's choice, whose voice they claim to respect. Might there be something else?
Perhaps the arrogance of a man being president while black?
Jesus could rise from the dead on Easter and Mitch could feel the nail holes and still refuse to speak to him about being nominated for SCOTUS because of the existence of "this president", just another dog whistle from the skinhead right.
Republican hate is gradually converting the Republican elephant into a dinosaur, witness their leading candidate.
"Bring It On" is right.
From the moment Obama was elected Republicans have been obsessed with turning their backs on the people's choice, whose voice they claim to respect. Might there be something else?
Perhaps the arrogance of a man being president while black?
Jesus could rise from the dead on Easter and Mitch could feel the nail holes and still refuse to speak to him about being nominated for SCOTUS because of the existence of "this president", just another dog whistle from the skinhead right.
Republican hate is gradually converting the Republican elephant into a dinosaur, witness their leading candidate.
"Bring It On" is right.
1
As usual, there is the factual record and the NeoConservative memes that become hardened belief.Judge Bork was a highly controversial figure long before his name was offered for the US Supreme Court.
For most Americans old enough to remember his name is inexorably linked to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre where the corrupt Richard Nixon interfered in the Justice Department's investigation into the activities that ultimately led to his resignation to avoid impeachment. Bork was a good little soldier and fired the Special Prosecutor after his superiors refused to, putting political loyalty above the law and good of the nation. This act alone, in the minds of many, disqualified him for consideration as a Supreme Court Justice.
His legal opinions were well out of the mainstream and were and are still considered to be extreme. Advancing such a zealot to the highest court was a brashly political move by Republicans trying to push the Judiciary ever further to the right. Although all appointments are in some manner political, this was a particularly brash and outlandish attempt.
The bottom line is that even this political hack was given a fair hearing and was found unworthy of our highest Court. The Senate owes any qualified Presidential appointment a fair hearing and an up or down vote in a timely manner.
For most Americans old enough to remember his name is inexorably linked to Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre where the corrupt Richard Nixon interfered in the Justice Department's investigation into the activities that ultimately led to his resignation to avoid impeachment. Bork was a good little soldier and fired the Special Prosecutor after his superiors refused to, putting political loyalty above the law and good of the nation. This act alone, in the minds of many, disqualified him for consideration as a Supreme Court Justice.
His legal opinions were well out of the mainstream and were and are still considered to be extreme. Advancing such a zealot to the highest court was a brashly political move by Republicans trying to push the Judiciary ever further to the right. Although all appointments are in some manner political, this was a particularly brash and outlandish attempt.
The bottom line is that even this political hack was given a fair hearing and was found unworthy of our highest Court. The Senate owes any qualified Presidential appointment a fair hearing and an up or down vote in a timely manner.
6
The total self destruction of the Republican Party will be the best thing to happen for us since our WWII victory. They have done much harm to our country, more than Al Qaeda ISIS. Glory in their downfall.
That wind you hear in November is not weather related. It is the world breathing a sigh of relief.
That wind you hear in November is not weather related. It is the world breathing a sigh of relief.
1
Looks like it's Mitch playing Dr KABORKIAN [sic]to the GOP. They really do seem to have a death wish, and I sincerely hope this is not only a swift one, but a painful loss as well. Goodbye GOP control. Mitch, we hardly know ya', but what we do know is more than enough for a lifetime.
1
Surprisingly, the usually careful, astute, and relevant Greenhouse ignores a fundamental element in this column: what is the legitimacy of judicial review in a democracy, and what does it take to maintain that legitimacy?
I expect not 5% of the American public understands the nature of judicial review, let alone its problems and relevant issues. Instead, most folks root for the Supreme Court to act as a supra-legislature, one that bases its decisions on preferred politics and policy. Unfortunately, civics seems to be a lost requirement in our schools, with Constitutional law thus reduced to policy and politics in the public awareness. I expect that, after a generation of this, today even many members of the Senate couldn't explain the basis for judicial review, let alone what it takes to maintain its legitimacy in a democracy. The current theater of the absurd does little but cast disrespect on the institution itself.
I expect not 5% of the American public understands the nature of judicial review, let alone its problems and relevant issues. Instead, most folks root for the Supreme Court to act as a supra-legislature, one that bases its decisions on preferred politics and policy. Unfortunately, civics seems to be a lost requirement in our schools, with Constitutional law thus reduced to policy and politics in the public awareness. I expect that, after a generation of this, today even many members of the Senate couldn't explain the basis for judicial review, let alone what it takes to maintain its legitimacy in a democracy. The current theater of the absurd does little but cast disrespect on the institution itself.
3
Given that Mr. Bork was the hatchet man for the Nixon administration, he was a very inappropriate nominee, indeed!
1
Kudos to Linda Greenhouse for a concise and eloquent summary of the Bork affair! Thank you!
Linda, could you write something about the history of recess appointments? Has it been done successfully by Presidents in the past?
Dear Mitch,
You were elected by people who trusted you to do a job. This is not a game. Please do what you were elected to do.
You were elected by people who trusted you to do a job. This is not a game. Please do what you were elected to do.
1
Whenever I see the Greenhouse byline, I know we're in for a brilliant, penetrating and incisive column from a real expert on the courts.
Thank you so much, Ms. Greenhouse!
Thank you so much, Ms. Greenhouse!
2
I watched an interview with Maine's Sen. Angus King last night in which he said, "What? They're afraid they'll LIKE the guy?!" 'Nuff said.
1
Is there no process available to remove Mitch McConnell from the leadership of Senate Republicans? His policy of obstructing anything, everything, and anyone proposed or nominated by President Obama threatens political gangrene to some of our most important institutions and programs. He has already done great damage, and now he spits in the eye of our twice-elected president and one of our most distinguished jurists for nakedly partisan reasons.
The process that rid us of Speaker Boehner is a possibility. It must begin with Republican senators realizing what a liability McConnell has made of himself as November looms closer. There is small hope of its actually happening, but the rot he is caused already stinks, and there's a hot summer ahead.
The process that rid us of Speaker Boehner is a possibility. It must begin with Republican senators realizing what a liability McConnell has made of himself as November looms closer. There is small hope of its actually happening, but the rot he is caused already stinks, and there's a hot summer ahead.
2
Surprisingly, the usually astute and relevant Greenhouse ignores a fundamental element: what is the legitimacy of judicial review in a democracy, and what does it take to maintain legitimacy?
I expect not 5% of the American public understands the problem and relevant issues, instead rooting for the Supreme Court to act as a supra-legislature, one that bases its decisions on preferred politics and policy. Unfortunately, civics seems to be a lost requirement in our schools, with Constitutional law thus reduced to policy and politics in the public awareness. I expect that, after a generation of this, even many members of the Senate couldn't explain the basis for judicial review, let alone what it takes to maintain its legitimacy in a democracy. The current theater of the absurd does little but cast disrespect on the institution itself.
I expect not 5% of the American public understands the problem and relevant issues, instead rooting for the Supreme Court to act as a supra-legislature, one that bases its decisions on preferred politics and policy. Unfortunately, civics seems to be a lost requirement in our schools, with Constitutional law thus reduced to policy and politics in the public awareness. I expect that, after a generation of this, even many members of the Senate couldn't explain the basis for judicial review, let alone what it takes to maintain its legitimacy in a democracy. The current theater of the absurd does little but cast disrespect on the institution itself.
3
Steve Fankuchen,
I am curious to know what you yourself see as the legitimacy of judicial review. From what I know of history, the Court's ruling under John Marshall in Marbury v Madison is the basis of our principal of judicial review. Those opposed to the ruling - Jefferson and his party - howled that the Constitution does not give the Court that power. If that is correct, it was the first "overreach by an activist court", and thus an awful lot of what the Court and the lower courts have done since then is not valid. And debates over originalist interpretation of the Constitution are pretty meaningless.
I personally feel it's a good thing that Marshall did what he did. I dont see the Court's work in interpreting the Constitution as legislating from the bench. I am influenced to a considerable degree by my childhood memory of Brown v. Board of Education. I grew up in Georgia and most people I knew then howled that the Court had no right to do what they did, whereas I thought it was purely a decision to rule on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause. So I saw, and see, a role for the Court as a protector of individual rights when the majority would like things otherwise
I am curious to know what you yourself see as the legitimacy of judicial review. From what I know of history, the Court's ruling under John Marshall in Marbury v Madison is the basis of our principal of judicial review. Those opposed to the ruling - Jefferson and his party - howled that the Constitution does not give the Court that power. If that is correct, it was the first "overreach by an activist court", and thus an awful lot of what the Court and the lower courts have done since then is not valid. And debates over originalist interpretation of the Constitution are pretty meaningless.
I personally feel it's a good thing that Marshall did what he did. I dont see the Court's work in interpreting the Constitution as legislating from the bench. I am influenced to a considerable degree by my childhood memory of Brown v. Board of Education. I grew up in Georgia and most people I knew then howled that the Court had no right to do what they did, whereas I thought it was purely a decision to rule on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause. So I saw, and see, a role for the Court as a protector of individual rights when the majority would like things otherwise
1
Constitutional law is so addled here now that half the people in the US believe an entirely imaginary personage called "God" actually runs the US.
Felecha, it's good to wake up and read a comment that is interested in the issues rather than simply wanting to rant and rave (which, most certainly, I too do with the best of them.) I don't have the time at the moment to reply -- I have an appointment -- substantively to what you have written. A couple quick points, albeit without substantiation.
Judicial review acts (ideally) as a brake on momentary extremes of the popular will, a function the Senate was designed for. It's legitimacy depends on an inherent conservatism, not in the current issue-defined political sense but, rather, in avoiding making major changes without a well developed and more than momentary sense of the "ought."
Twice (offhand) the Court has stepped in when the normal political process has broken down and been unable to deal with the situation: Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade. It also stepped in with the Citizens United and related decisions declaring corporations as as citizens with Bill of Rights standing, but that was not done to deal with a fundamental problem but, rather, as entirely unwarranted activism.
Sorry, gotta go......
Oh, the New York Review had an excellent piece on Scalia's jurisprudence, but I don't have time to get the URL. It came out the week he died.
Judicial review acts (ideally) as a brake on momentary extremes of the popular will, a function the Senate was designed for. It's legitimacy depends on an inherent conservatism, not in the current issue-defined political sense but, rather, in avoiding making major changes without a well developed and more than momentary sense of the "ought."
Twice (offhand) the Court has stepped in when the normal political process has broken down and been unable to deal with the situation: Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade. It also stepped in with the Citizens United and related decisions declaring corporations as as citizens with Bill of Rights standing, but that was not done to deal with a fundamental problem but, rather, as entirely unwarranted activism.
Sorry, gotta go......
Oh, the New York Review had an excellent piece on Scalia's jurisprudence, but I don't have time to get the URL. It came out the week he died.
1
And the republican establishment still does not understand what the voters are angry about!! We feel betrayed! But about what you say? How about the fact that we hired you to do your job and you continue, time and again, to refuse to do just that. We did not hire you to do nothing. Since when do I receive my paycheck for going to work and refusing to do anything?? What makes you think it is ok for you to take home your pay (that comes out of my paycheck) while you do nothing but close down the very government that gives you that paycheck???
Where do you get off? I say right here and right now! Vote DEMOCRAT.
Where do you get off? I say right here and right now! Vote DEMOCRAT.
15
Good idea, Christine, but possibly too little and certainly too late. The cracks in the governmental foundation are expanding rapidly.
Aren't the Republican Senators effectively amending the Constitution to read: "No Supreme Court nominee of a president shall be approved by the Senate in the final year of a president's term of office"? When did the Senate majority get the right to amend the Constitution unilaterally? Talk about over-reaching their authority.
7
This concept of not having hearings on nominees in an election year was first floated during the Presidency of George W. Bush, by Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. In fact, it's come to be known as the "Biden Rule".
I strongly hope that the Repubs stick to their guns and never hold hearings on this nominee. Even into the next Presidency. It is one of the biggest mistakes the whole party made since the three-ring comedy of George W. Bush and his puppeteer Cheney. They will be covered all over with something sticky, and it won't be egg. Even more so than any other time in my memory. Very surprising for an old, experienced political movement, but it sure makes me happy. Hello, President Hillary Clinton.......
2
Be careful what you wish for...if they feel empowered to do this, what else do think they might feel empowered to do?
I have a charming photo of my father as a teenager standing on a city sidewalk holding his pet terrier. The picture was taken in Berlin. In 1932, the same year he and his family left Europe.
I have a charming photo of my father as a teenager standing on a city sidewalk holding his pet terrier. The picture was taken in Berlin. In 1932, the same year he and his family left Europe.
By no means am I a constitutional scholar, but I am struck by something. No where in the constitution does it specify that should a President nominate someone for the Supreme Court and then leave office before the Senate offers its advice and consent, the nomination dies on the vine. I would think the Senate would still have to meet and make a decision on the nominee, regardless of who is in the Presidency at that time. The nomination has been lawfully made by President Obama; the Senate must act, either now or after the new President has been sworn in.
3
The Republicans have been calling Democratic Presidents "Your President" for decades. If memory serves me right, it began with Newt Gingrich. So why should anyone be surprised that they want to truncate a Democratic President's term of office! If the Republicans want the presidential term of office to be 3 years, let them attempt to bring about a Constitutional Convention to vote on this. Until then; "Original Intent"!
2
Linda Greenhouse's argument seems circular. Validity of the "out of mainstream" argument is precisely what is at issue: Are our laws bendable to coincide with current norms or are they immutable? Is SCOTUS an assembly of judges or legislators?
1
The crucial difference between the Bork and Garland situations is that Bork was a tug o' war over a particular judge. The Garland nomination fight is not really about a judge at all. It's about a soft coup by the Senate to rebel explicitly and implicitly against the Constitution and its division of powers in a way that has NO precedent and elevates party over nation.
The President's use of executive orders has many precedents and court reviews in the process. This Senate effort has none. But there seems to be no penalty for it, so why not?
What's their next step in breaking government going to be?
The President's use of executive orders has many precedents and court reviews in the process. This Senate effort has none. But there seems to be no penalty for it, so why not?
What's their next step in breaking government going to be?
5
Naomi, it will be brokering Cruz to the Republican Party nomination.
1
The Republican nightmare may come true in November where a Democrat is elected President and Democrats take a majority in the Senate. The current story is that the Republicans will confirm Garland, a moderate, after the election and before the new Senate takes office to prevent the new President from nominating, and getting confirmed, a liberal. The flaw in this strategy is that Obama can withdraw the nomination on the day after the election in order to agree with the GOP argument to allow the new President to pick the nominee.
15
Well, at least the balance of the court has been maintained. If we had gotten a fourth Yale Law School graduate with the four Harvard graduates we could have had gridlock with Ginsberg of Columbia being the swing vote. But it could have been worse. President Obama could have done something crazy like appointing a justice who didn't graduate from an Ivy League law school, or a Protestant, or a second justice from west of the Mississippi. Anyway, it's all good fun. Think of the laughs we'll all have when they get to make rulings on issues associated with diversity.
Since World War II, a Democratic Senate has confirmed 9 Republican nominees to the Supreme Court. In that change, the court changed from progressive to conservative.
This is the first time a Republican Senate has ever been confronted with a nominee from a Democrat. They reject and don't even consider it.
Democrats have controlled the Presidency 16 of the last 24 years. Shouldn't the Court reflect that. Why should the Court always be regressive.
Obama's pick is how it should be, a moderate progressive because it is a Republican Senate.
This is the first time a Republican Senate has ever been confronted with a nominee from a Democrat. They reject and don't even consider it.
Democrats have controlled the Presidency 16 of the last 24 years. Shouldn't the Court reflect that. Why should the Court always be regressive.
Obama's pick is how it should be, a moderate progressive because it is a Republican Senate.
1
This is nothing but a bald and corrupt power grab by McConnell and his cohorts. Constitution, schmonsitution. We don't need no constitution.
If there were any remaining sentiment among the American people that courts are impartial, fair and apolitical animals, this exercise in desperate power mongering ought to end it.
See McConnell and the Republican party for what they are.
If there were any remaining sentiment among the American people that courts are impartial, fair and apolitical animals, this exercise in desperate power mongering ought to end it.
See McConnell and the Republican party for what they are.
1
Judge Garland is considered a moderate but is clearly far more progressive than a Republican would like nominate. Were the tables turned and a Democratically controlled Senate had the opportunity to wait a few months to potentially prevent a court from moving hard right, I highly doubt the Nytimes board would be criticize their use of their constitutional power. Instead, they would be lauding their action. I happen to favor having Judge Garland on the court. However, I find the false outrage of the left to be disingenuous at best and more likely a combination of intellectual dishonesty and partisan politics.
Since this move by the GOP is without precedence in US history, then your assertion that "the dems are as bad as the GOP," is just kerfuffle, and has no validity whatsoever.
Apparently, you simply are spouting party propaganda. There have been three period where the court was missing a justice for over 1 year. Further, I would assume that your definition of "unprecedented" would include the fundamental restructuring of the largest part of the American economy (healthcare) by a single party without a single supporting vote of the opposition party.
I would like to see the Obama administration take this issue to the current Supreme Court. The issue being how does a President proceed in this duties when the Senate refuses to follow the Constitution and exercise it's duty to "advise and consent".
This might have the added advantage to stop in it's tracks, this political strategy of obstructing the executive branch in their duties of running the government. Perhaps the precedent would force Congress to fund the different departments of state adequately? A decision by the Court might cause the Senate to consider all appointments appropriately.
Even though I'm not sure if an appeal to the Supreme Court is allowable in this case, and there is always the risk of the Court ruling against the Administration, it would be good to have the question of the Senate Republicans methods resolved.
This might have the added advantage to stop in it's tracks, this political strategy of obstructing the executive branch in their duties of running the government. Perhaps the precedent would force Congress to fund the different departments of state adequately? A decision by the Court might cause the Senate to consider all appointments appropriately.
Even though I'm not sure if an appeal to the Supreme Court is allowable in this case, and there is always the risk of the Court ruling against the Administration, it would be good to have the question of the Senate Republicans methods resolved.
9
The NY Times previously considered whether President Obama had standing to sue the Senate for refusing to consider his nominee. The conclusion was that he did have standing but probably would not do so. But now that Mitch McConnell has personally called Merrick Garland and told him that he won't be considered in the Senate, I would be interested to hear speculation over whether Garland might consider suing the Senate for refusing to take up his nomination. After all, he is now the true victim of the GOP's intransigence in this unnecessary drama.
Kevin, Merrick may be one victim in this mess, but is We the People who are really suffering over the GOP's act of treason. We are the victims of their willful destruction of our system, and their failure to perform their main constitutional duty.
Obama's specific choice, offered up at this specific time, is elegantly designed to inflict maximum impact on Senate Republicans as they return home to try and persuade their constituents to 'double down' with their popular vote: obstruct a clearly capable middle of the road jurist or risk a more liberal appointment in 2017.
1
So, Ms. Greenhouse's theory is apparently that this nominee is so squeaky clean that he couldn't be borked, even if the Republicans tried.
Of course, in order to try, they'd have to give him a hearing, which is exactly what they don't want to do (and, exactly what Joe Biden said they shouldn't do!). But, Ms. Greenhouse is yelling "Chicken!" and daring the Republicans to bork the guy, because she thinks she can shame them into giving the him a hearing by using such a juvenile trick?
This is just more lame left-wing noise. Nice try, Ms. Greenhouse.
Of course, in order to try, they'd have to give him a hearing, which is exactly what they don't want to do (and, exactly what Joe Biden said they shouldn't do!). But, Ms. Greenhouse is yelling "Chicken!" and daring the Republicans to bork the guy, because she thinks she can shame them into giving the him a hearing by using such a juvenile trick?
This is just more lame left-wing noise. Nice try, Ms. Greenhouse.
The lesson of Robert Bork is an excellent one to draw upon as it is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented.
Bork's nomination is an example of the Senate's Constitutional right and obligation to advise and consent with the President on such an important selection as Supreme Court justice.
The Senate's role attempts to put reasonable and sensible limits around a President's nominating decision.
Congressional Democrats fully vetted Robert Bork, gave him every chance to express his opinions and legal philosophies, and ultimately voted overwhelmingly that he was inappropriate as a jurist on the Court.
I couldn't agree more with the Senate's decision.
That is the way the system is supposed to work. The President should not be able to appoint any nominee he or she wants to a lifetime position of such import.
The sensible thing to do would be to hold hearings, decide if the nominee is qualified and philosophically agreeable to the Senators and vote accordingly.
Failing that, Republicans are establishing a dangerous precedent and the blow back could be quite devastating and unpredictable.
It would not be very wise, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time they chose to do something very unwise.
Bork's nomination is an example of the Senate's Constitutional right and obligation to advise and consent with the President on such an important selection as Supreme Court justice.
The Senate's role attempts to put reasonable and sensible limits around a President's nominating decision.
Congressional Democrats fully vetted Robert Bork, gave him every chance to express his opinions and legal philosophies, and ultimately voted overwhelmingly that he was inappropriate as a jurist on the Court.
I couldn't agree more with the Senate's decision.
That is the way the system is supposed to work. The President should not be able to appoint any nominee he or she wants to a lifetime position of such import.
The sensible thing to do would be to hold hearings, decide if the nominee is qualified and philosophically agreeable to the Senators and vote accordingly.
Failing that, Republicans are establishing a dangerous precedent and the blow back could be quite devastating and unpredictable.
It would not be very wise, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time they chose to do something very unwise.
5
To paraphrase a famous American, "Mr. McConnell, have you no shame?"
4
So the Republican senators are going to honor the "world's foremost deliberative body" and their place in it by holding their breath till they turn blue. They are indeed as a city upon a hill: the world is watching in astonishment.
3
Thanks Linda! A prescient analysis as always. It makes me think that the pejorative "getting Borked" is easily out-done in our time with "getting Republicaned" or, perhaps in this case, "getting Mitched." The GOP does not
care a whit for our country.
care a whit for our country.
2
The Senate has the right to advice and consent. What happens when they give no advice (their right) and fail to consent or deny. Can someone explain why not explicitly denying a nominee is in way consent. If the founding fathers wanted the Senate to have the power to deny a hearing they would have granted them the right of "review and approval" rather than "advice and consent".
Bork was an outlier, a man who really disagreed with all of the principles upon which the country's government and written Constitution were founded. His ideal form of government was more like that in England in 1789 rather than the one being crafted in the new United States of America. He really believed that some entities should be given greater power and influence and others less. The Roman Republic gave more authority and voting privileges to the rich than to those not rich, which was more in line with the kind of system Bork would have found ideal. He did not believe that established institutions and those elected to high office, and those with a lot of personal power, should have the same standing in government nor in the courts as all those with less wealth, power or influence. He would have undone all democratic rulings which deprived the rich and powerful of the advantages they might have enjoyed from those privileges. For culture conservatives and the reactionary arch conservatives which have so much influence upon the Republican Party, Bork was perfectly suited to help revise the legal system in this country to suit themselves.
2
Bork was a legal genius.... Obama's offering is joe-bag-o-donuts by comparison
Republicans believe Obama only deserves 3/5th of his term
3
You want a scary thought? You want a Donnybrook battle over a Supreme Court nominee? Imagine a brokered Republican convention. Cruz throws his delegates to Trump (or Kasich) in return for the candidate's promise to nominate Cruz to the Supreme Court.
1
Here are two questions that I think should be asked of all the current Republican Senators:
In the future, if in a Republican President's second term of office (in which there was also a Republcan-majority Senate), would the current Republican Senate leadership and other Republican Senators consider the position on this question, which they are advocating at this time, be a binding authority precedent upon all future Republican Presidents? And, second, if the answer is in the affirmative as to becoming a binding authority precedent, could the prohibitive period for naming a replacement justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by the then-current President be for a period any greater than one year?
In the future, if in a Republican President's second term of office (in which there was also a Republcan-majority Senate), would the current Republican Senate leadership and other Republican Senators consider the position on this question, which they are advocating at this time, be a binding authority precedent upon all future Republican Presidents? And, second, if the answer is in the affirmative as to becoming a binding authority precedent, could the prohibitive period for naming a replacement justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by the then-current President be for a period any greater than one year?
By the Republican Senate's refusal to perform their Constitutional duty of confirmation of an acceptable Presidential nominee for Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, they invalidate the role of the President of the United States in this constitutionally mandated process.
Can this constitutionally-obstructionist conduct extend beyond the last year of a President's term of office?
And, on principle, should any President, Democrat or Republican, be barred in his fourth year in office from nominating a qualified candidate as U. S. Supreme Court Justice, even with a Senate majority of the same party as the President? The President elected in this fourth year of the current President's term may be of a different political party and would surely nominate a different person to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
Can this constitutionally-obstructionist conduct extend beyond the last year of a President's term of office?
And, on principle, should any President, Democrat or Republican, be barred in his fourth year in office from nominating a qualified candidate as U. S. Supreme Court Justice, even with a Senate majority of the same party as the President? The President elected in this fourth year of the current President's term may be of a different political party and would surely nominate a different person to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
1
The president has fulfilled his Constitutional obligation to nominate a Supreme Court justice. The Senate is refusing to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to provide "advice and consent" to the president, who was duly elected by the people (twice). Our system holds the three branches of government as equals. When one branch actively refuses to meet its duty under the Constitution, it seems to me that it is quite deliberately forfeiting that power. If the Senate continues on its present path, the President should go ahead and issue the appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and instruct him to report for work on Monday. The Senate would no doubt object and file suit in Federal Court. Who would ultimately decide if the Senate had, in fact, forfeited its Constitutional role to the Executive Branch? Why, the Supreme Court, of course.
1
At least the GOP is being consistent. No No NO NO....No doubt they will also be consistent at Cleveland in July. Protect those Second Amendment Rights!!! Open Carry on the convention floor!!! Let the Trumpers bring their AR-15's. Go ahead GOP deny him. After all, if you are going to say NO to your job of reviewing the president's nominee, you have to say YES to uninhibited gun play at your party's party. Stick to your principles!!
6
Given the magnitude of the issues pertaining to this Supreme Court vacancy, I for one am enormously grateful to Ms. Greenhouse for her insights and perspective. It is imperative that the public be reminded that Judge Bork was given a full and fair hearing, even though it was apparent that his nomination was likely to fail from the outset because of his extreme views. He had the opportunity to make his case. And he did: he was clearly unfit to serve on the Court. Judge Garland, as Ms. Greenhouse so eloquently writes, is deserving of no less courtesy and fairness than that accorded to Judge Bork.
McConnell and his band of reactionaries are clearly afraid; they knew Obama would nominate someone who would otherwise be a slam-dunk, and rather than confront the probability that this nominee would be confirmed they are choosing to avoid having to even contemplate this choice. Because when it comes down to voting for Judge Garland, logic, reason, and fairness would overcome ideology in enough of the Republican members of the Senate to affirm his nomination.
McConnell and his band of reactionaries are clearly afraid; they knew Obama would nominate someone who would otherwise be a slam-dunk, and rather than confront the probability that this nominee would be confirmed they are choosing to avoid having to even contemplate this choice. Because when it comes down to voting for Judge Garland, logic, reason, and fairness would overcome ideology in enough of the Republican members of the Senate to affirm his nomination.
37
Nobody seriously equates this refusal to consider who we now know to be Judge Garland with the Bork outrage by Ted Kennedy. What this remains clearly is a willingness by the Republican Senate leadership to risk obtaining a more liberal U.S. Supreme Court nomination by a Democratic president in 2017 to possibly get a more conservative one by a Republican president.
Quite a crapshoot, and certainly not what I would do – I’d take Garland as an excellent choice as likely to defend conservative principles as liberal ones, and place the risk of a more liberal justice safely behind us. But I’m not running the U.S. Senate and it’s not my risk to take.
It’s a distraction to center on the Bork hearings because they are not even remotely comparable to the current situation, and clearly are intended to get Garland before the Judiciary Committee in formal hearings. Bork heralded the beginning of a no-holds-barred attempt by Senate liberals, headed in that instance by Ted Kennedy, to deny Supreme Court seats to conservatives, in the hope of perpetuating the recourse liberals had adopted up to that point of depending on the courts to obtain what they couldn’t by legislation – a decision that now has transformed the process into a blood sport.
Frankly, if this is a risk by Republicans, it seems to be fear on the part of Dems that Hillary will lose to Trump. Probably not the best sentiment to telegraph to the electorate.
And the Senate majority gets to conduct its business as it sees fit.
Quite a crapshoot, and certainly not what I would do – I’d take Garland as an excellent choice as likely to defend conservative principles as liberal ones, and place the risk of a more liberal justice safely behind us. But I’m not running the U.S. Senate and it’s not my risk to take.
It’s a distraction to center on the Bork hearings because they are not even remotely comparable to the current situation, and clearly are intended to get Garland before the Judiciary Committee in formal hearings. Bork heralded the beginning of a no-holds-barred attempt by Senate liberals, headed in that instance by Ted Kennedy, to deny Supreme Court seats to conservatives, in the hope of perpetuating the recourse liberals had adopted up to that point of depending on the courts to obtain what they couldn’t by legislation – a decision that now has transformed the process into a blood sport.
Frankly, if this is a risk by Republicans, it seems to be fear on the part of Dems that Hillary will lose to Trump. Probably not the best sentiment to telegraph to the electorate.
And the Senate majority gets to conduct its business as it sees fit.
1
Well, the Democrats didn't make a "no holds barred" attempt. They barred the hold of not having hearings at all. What Mitch McConnell has done is unConstitutional on the face of it. The Republicans will do anything--including doing nothing at all--to thwart this President. It is indefensible.
10
Ray:
Whether it's indefensible because it doesn't satisfy your ideological needs, and whether it's unconstitutional, are two very different matters, The Senate majority leadership gets to determine pretty much how it chooses to conduct business because each congressional house sets its own rules and they speak for the Senate at present.
Whether it's indefensible because it doesn't satisfy your ideological needs, and whether it's unconstitutional, are two very different matters, The Senate majority leadership gets to determine pretty much how it chooses to conduct business because each congressional house sets its own rules and they speak for the Senate at present.
What twisted logic. How could we possibly have had 4 right wing SCOTUS members in place all these years, if the dems had played the same hand as the GOP has done in this case? And not "consenting" to a man like Bork, is not at all the same as refusing to "advise" in this case. You are an intelligent man Richard, but in this instance, even the most facile of wordsmiths cannot defend what the senate has done, which is-- and I say the words seriously-- revolutionary, possibly treasonous.
Bork was an extremist. That's one of the reasons he was rejected.
If the GOP senators don't do their jobs and give Mr. Garland a hearing, I want their wages and benefits to be repealed.
If the GOP senators don't do their jobs and give Mr. Garland a hearing, I want their wages and benefits to be repealed.
9
Good idea. Problem is it doesn't matter what you or anyone else wants - those in office hold ALL power over the functioning (or not) of our government and enormous power over our daily lives. The ONLY power we hold is our vote.
1
Be a real shame if the GOP passed up this opportunity because Hillary won't be so beholding to their no to everything stand. She can outlast them, just like Old Ben Gazi.
1
Who needs democracy or democratic processes? We've got 'daddy Mitch' and all of those other wannabee Republican daddy's to protect 'we, the unexceptionals' from the perils and pitfalls of the democracy that's taught in schools.
They and their "originalist" friends have the inside scoop on the real thoughts and intents of the founding fathers, and they've dedicated their lives to protecting us from the falsehoods and misinterpreted words that actually appear on the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. They are the experts in all of that right wing wisdom that resides between the lines and is embedded in the 'squiggle's in and behind the ink'.
Whew! I've always wondered what those squiggle meant. Thanks Mitch! Without all of your squiggling, we'd all be suffering from the faux version of democracy that we've falsely attributed to all of those people who have fought, died, and wrote about it over the past couple hundred years.
Now I see why you want to get rid of the Department of Education. They've been misleading the country for generations, and it's time that we change the books to reflect the Mitch version. You should talk to Rick Perry and his 'school book' crowd. I'm sure that they could squeeze you and your amazing ideas in somewhere between the absurd and the bizarre.
They and their "originalist" friends have the inside scoop on the real thoughts and intents of the founding fathers, and they've dedicated their lives to protecting us from the falsehoods and misinterpreted words that actually appear on the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. They are the experts in all of that right wing wisdom that resides between the lines and is embedded in the 'squiggle's in and behind the ink'.
Whew! I've always wondered what those squiggle meant. Thanks Mitch! Without all of your squiggling, we'd all be suffering from the faux version of democracy that we've falsely attributed to all of those people who have fought, died, and wrote about it over the past couple hundred years.
Now I see why you want to get rid of the Department of Education. They've been misleading the country for generations, and it's time that we change the books to reflect the Mitch version. You should talk to Rick Perry and his 'school book' crowd. I'm sure that they could squeeze you and your amazing ideas in somewhere between the absurd and the bizarre.
6
There seems to be some confusion in some quarters about who is boss in this situation. That would be the American people, who already have a voice in this by having hired President Obama (by millions of votes) and by having hired these Senators to advise and consent on his Supreme Court nominations. There is nothing in the Constitution about election years. There is nothing there about whether there are precedents in regard to the timing. Senators are employed because people went out to vote. A vote means you are hired by the American people to do a job. Obama is doing his job. He has offered a nominee. The Senators are not doing their jobs. They are refusing to advise and consent. According to the Real Clear Politics website:
President Obama Approval Rating 48,9%
Congressional Job Approval Rating: 12.8%
Can someone explain why the Senators are not meeting with the nominee and why they are not taking this forward in the usual way?
President Obama Approval Rating 48,9%
Congressional Job Approval Rating: 12.8%
Can someone explain why the Senators are not meeting with the nominee and why they are not taking this forward in the usual way?
58
Can someone explain to me just exactly what the Republicans in the Senate would have to do to be charged with sedition (at worst) or dereliction of duty (at the least)? Kill someone? They are in clear violation of the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold.
1
I can explain it. It is because there is no specified penalty for refusing to do their duty. It is a failure common to many laws, policies, procedures, etc: what to do is specified, but what happens upon refusal is not specified.
1
The most frustrating thing about the entire political situation in Washington right now—not just the Supreme Court nomination—is that there is no appealing to reason. The GOP is acting like little children do when having a tantrum, simply squeezing their eyes shut, screaming, and plugging their ears, in the vain hope that the "offending" adult will go away.
And many of their followers act the same way.
And many of their followers act the same way.
3
PERHAPS the Senate's refusal to vote can be construed as consent.
Consenting to something means not opposing it. If the Senate does not vote, then it does not oppose, and thus consents.
To see some other steps that might help go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform and Benton-Comedy2, each under 4 minutes. Then help level the playing field, send a buck to Bernie. Have some fun, invite me to speak.
Consenting to something means not opposing it. If the Senate does not vote, then it does not oppose, and thus consents.
To see some other steps that might help go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform and Benton-Comedy2, each under 4 minutes. Then help level the playing field, send a buck to Bernie. Have some fun, invite me to speak.
2
You'd think with their party in disarray the Republicans in the Senate would want to appear to be functional and productive. Apparently not.
3
Let them obstruct. We can take back the Senate,elect Hillary Clinton for President, and she can nominate Barak Obama to serve on the Supreme Court.
6
And then we would miss out on this perfectly good nominee, who will serve faithfully and fairly, which is more than I can say for his predecessor, who was increasingly sounding nuts. Your alternate plan sounds good, except that tradition and precedence are important basis for our system, and that is why the senators are so very wrong to play this game.
I just wish Chief Justice Roberts would publicly or privately tell the US Senate, "We need a full bench before this SCOTUS term ends, and so just get with it already". It is telling how inadequate our constitution is in terms of requiring the Senate to do its job.
3
How is he rushing the nomination? What is the average time between the loss of a justice and the nomination of another?
1
Greenhouse is correct, Bork was not filibustered. Bork got his opportunity to present his viewpoint. However, Obama voted to filibuster Sammy Alito. Apparently, Obama thought Alito didn't deserve the same consideration. Now, he wants his boy to get the shot he was willing to deny another nominee. Thus, the present situation. It taste bad, doesn't it Barry?
2
The treatment of Robert Bork by Teddy Kennedy & Company, and the word "courtesy", in the same sentence? Ms. Greenhouse is shameless.
The republican 'position in this saga has all the ingredients of over confidence undermined by miscalculation.'Mitch is wagering on two,possibly three,things at once.First,that a republican will succeed Barack Obama.Secondly,that in the interim,the public outcry will not manifest negatively or unbearably.Thirdly and lastly,that Hillary Clinton(my 'choice) will nominate(with a democratic senate majority) someone all the more partisan than is being currently presented.Of course that obvious person to be nominated is Barack Obama.Clearly,this is the catastrophe(in conservative minds)the right acknowledges is at stake and is their dilemma.Through all of this however,a pervasive conservative FEAR,of the inevitable future is paramount,from the vote suppression disenfranchisement maneuvers stateside to those now at the Supreme Court...Conservatives would do well to take their foot off the throat of progress as the stain and the pain will not be soon forgotten...
2
With their Senate and House majorities, the Republicans have proven their inability to govern. May as many of them as possible be sent packing in November, and be replaced by grownups.
4
Maybe the GOP{ considers Obama 3/5 of a President, in which case his time to make a nomination has expired.
3
Don't worry, Linda. We will. And we'll crucify him.
This is NOT anything like the Bork battle. This is something we have never seen before. There will be no battle because McConnell has decided so.
McConnell's ridiculous assertion to "let the people decide" needs to be called out by the press. Over and over, we need to remind him, and the rest of the republicans in the senate, that the people HAVE decided. Twice. We elected Obama because we trust him on precisely this type of decision of utmost importance to us, the American people. I would ask that Mr. McConnell review that vow he took when he became a senator. I'll bet there isn't anything in it espousing holding the country hostage until he gets what he wants.
McConnell's ridiculous assertion to "let the people decide" needs to be called out by the press. Over and over, we need to remind him, and the rest of the republicans in the senate, that the people HAVE decided. Twice. We elected Obama because we trust him on precisely this type of decision of utmost importance to us, the American people. I would ask that Mr. McConnell review that vow he took when he became a senator. I'll bet there isn't anything in it espousing holding the country hostage until he gets what he wants.
42
That's "President" Obama. I fail to understand this constant failure by Americans to address their president respectfully, whether you like him or not, at least respect the office.
The day is not out yet and Republicans have already kicked President Obama's nominee to the curb. The odious Mister One-Term McConnell told Merrick Garland not to bother coming over for a meet and greet.
The lines have been drawn. Now it will be up to the The Turtle's constituents to give him a piece of their minds when he departs for the Blue Grass of home on his two week recess. If the people who have kept him in the Senate for all these years express their dissatisfaction with McConnell's decision that could persuade him to "rethink" his position. Yes, it's a long shot alright, a very long shot, but it's worth it.
If supporters of McConnell and other conservative Republican Senators continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh and his constant litany of fear and suspicion then all hope is lost. Republicans, especially the ones up for re-election this year, are worried. They will be listening very carefully over the next two weeks to their constituents. They will gauge the pulse of the people. If the people who support the Obstructionists decide enough is enough, this civil war which has been raging for the entire length of the president's term might bring about a truce. The Senate could then do its job, advise and consent to an up or down vote. But I'm not naive. I'm not holding my breath.
DD
Manhattan
The lines have been drawn. Now it will be up to the The Turtle's constituents to give him a piece of their minds when he departs for the Blue Grass of home on his two week recess. If the people who have kept him in the Senate for all these years express their dissatisfaction with McConnell's decision that could persuade him to "rethink" his position. Yes, it's a long shot alright, a very long shot, but it's worth it.
If supporters of McConnell and other conservative Republican Senators continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh and his constant litany of fear and suspicion then all hope is lost. Republicans, especially the ones up for re-election this year, are worried. They will be listening very carefully over the next two weeks to their constituents. They will gauge the pulse of the people. If the people who support the Obstructionists decide enough is enough, this civil war which has been raging for the entire length of the president's term might bring about a truce. The Senate could then do its job, advise and consent to an up or down vote. But I'm not naive. I'm not holding my breath.
DD
Manhattan
Regardless of what your thoughts are about Garland, President Obama has done his constitutional duty. He has nominated a respected jurist for the highest court in the US. Now it is up to the senate to do their duty. Anything less is dereliction of duty and, in the military, they would be court martialed for failing to do their job. I believe all of them have sworn to "uphold the Constitution of the United States of America". Whether they consent or or not, they have the obligation to bring this to a vote. This is why so many Americans are fed up with Congress.
51
When we say, "This is why so many Americans are fed up with Congress," we need to remember that that is the goal of the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress. Grover Norquist said he wanted to reduce the size of the government to "the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." The best way to reduce the size of the government is to make people hate it and no longer support it, and the reason to reduce the size of government is so that corporations and the rich (those whom the Republicans represent) can do whatever they want. Fed up with Congress? Mitch McConnell is delighted to hear it.
1
Why did President Obama pick such a person who actually does not too much for the progressive side of things in the Supreme Court? For this progressive, since the congress was not going to approve anyone the president chooses, why didn't he pick a true progressive? Because in fact, President Obama is not one. What appears to be middle of the road with his choice, is actually to the right. We have moved so far to the right in this country as a whole, Trump calls Sanders a communist!, when he is anything but AND seems to get away with it. I am not pleased with Garland either. Already, President Obama has chosen industry insiders that got him to office in Illinois. I would have loved a choice based on principle and not political expediency. The hell with the Repubicans. They are so far out, there is no explanation for them, except they are lacking in basic intelligence.
Garland is somebody who would not make the court more liberal or conservative while Bork was a radical anti-enlightenment jurist who would have departed from the liberal democratic foundations of this republic, a real firebrand reactionary. The Democrats knew that Bork was going to try to undo every previous decision which assured people of their liberties by reducing the power of government and of private institutions subject to governmental restrictions. The Republicans believe that they can get a more conservative jurist by waiting for the Republican President's election in November than any that would appointed by the current Democratic President, so they are pretending that it's perfectly okay for them to refuse to hold hearings for this appointee.
19
Actually, Garland would make the Court quite a bit more liberal, in that he is replacing a staunch conservative. See the site 538 or the NY Times today to illustrate the extent to which even a moderate justice moves the court to the Left. (I say this as a complete supporter of Garland's nomination and his right to have a hearing and a vote in the Senate)
Is there no constitutional means for dealing with unconstitutional (in)action of the Senate Republicans? Perhaps the Supreme Court could step in and refuse to continue work until a new justice is appointed, because the Republicans, by refusing to act, "threaten irreparable harm to the [President], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon... the legitimacy of his election."
3
Simple fact. If Obama was Republican those who are against this nomination getting a vote would be for it and those who are for it like this writer would be against it. We are all hypocrites who decided based on party loyalty rather than what is right or wrong. Heck Dems even try to justify Biden's past position. So instead of trying to sound genuine just admit your party affiliation and we all know what your opinion will be.
I don't see the present nominee in any remote way similar to Bork.
The reasons Democrats rejected Bork was that he was hardly a judge at all. Robert Bork was a politician masquerading as a judge. Brilliant? yes. Legal scholar? yes. To be trusted with the interpretation of the United States Constitution? Not on YOUR life.
Contrast the Bork nomination with an Obama nomination of Jesus Christ.
The Republicans would refuse to hear his words.
The reasons Democrats rejected Bork was that he was hardly a judge at all. Robert Bork was a politician masquerading as a judge. Brilliant? yes. Legal scholar? yes. To be trusted with the interpretation of the United States Constitution? Not on YOUR life.
Contrast the Bork nomination with an Obama nomination of Jesus Christ.
The Republicans would refuse to hear his words.
2
Thomas Paine said, "When opinions are free (in matters of government or religion) truth will finally and powerfully prevail."
The Republican Senate majority has decided that with respect to the Supreme Court selection, now, opinions are not free.
Is this not Supreme STUPIDITY?
The Republican Senate majority has decided that with respect to the Supreme Court selection, now, opinions are not free.
Is this not Supreme STUPIDITY?
2
The Republican strategy is clearly twofold: buy time and cut your losses. They've two windows in the calendar: Nov 8 to Jan 2 -- the lame-duck Senate between the election and the swearing in of the new Senate. The second window is Jan 3 to Jan 20, the time between a new Senate and a new President. If the GOP loses the presidential election *and* the Senate on Nov 8, they could then hastily confirm Garland in a lame-duck session -- cutting their losses before a new Senate and a new President can nominate someone really liberal. If the Dems win the White House but the GOP keeps the Senate, then the GOP is no worse off with a Hillary(?) nomination. It's politically cunning, it's high risk -- and it further politicizes the High Court. So sad we've come to this, but I suspect Mitch is much more afraid of being Boehnered than he is of Borking Garland.
2
We the People need to be conscious of the fact that what Senate Republicans are doing in refusing to follow the US Constitution and "advise and consent" is committing sedition.
sedition n. incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
sedition n. incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
1
The Republican Senate is doing exactly what the occupiers of the federal wildlife refuge in Oregon did: interfering with the duties of federal officials.
The irony here is that it was Uncle Joe Biden who, as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1987 during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, literally invented the "politics of personal destruction." If it weren't for Biden, we would not have the verb "to bork" in our American vocabulary.
This, of course, as has been pointed out, is on top of Biden's comments on the senate floor regarding the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice during a president's final term, that are now being referred to by Republicans as "the Biden Rule."
The Democrats are the genesis of everything that is being done by the Republicans right now. They have no one to blame but themselves. And, casting aspersions of the Republicans for taking advantage of the environment that the Democrats themselves created and defended is the height of hypocrisy.
This, of course, as has been pointed out, is on top of Biden's comments on the senate floor regarding the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice during a president's final term, that are now being referred to by Republicans as "the Biden Rule."
The Democrats are the genesis of everything that is being done by the Republicans right now. They have no one to blame but themselves. And, casting aspersions of the Republicans for taking advantage of the environment that the Democrats themselves created and defended is the height of hypocrisy.
You need to go back and read your history. If my memory serves me correctly, Bork was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In most situations that would be the end of the story. But in a pique, he demanded that his nomination be placed before the entire Senate, where once again he was denied. He had two shots at the apple and lost both times. I might also remind you that on both votes, Republicans members of the judiciary committee and in the Senate at large voted against him. You can claim all you want to that this was Biden's doing, but history and the facts do not support you, my friend.
1
The Senate should treat the nominee the same way that Senate Judiciary Chairman Joseph Biden treated President George H.W. Bush's judicial nominees in 1992.
Frank, I will bet you $100 that you can't name even ONE of President George H. W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees in 1992.
That is because there were NONE. There was no vacancy on the Supreme Court at any time during 1992.
But you parrot nonsense anyway.
Besides, then Senator Joe Biden was talking about a vacancy caused by a resignation, and not about a vacancy caused by a death.
It was God's will that Justice Scalia's term would end now. He didn't resign.
That is because there were NONE. There was no vacancy on the Supreme Court at any time during 1992.
But you parrot nonsense anyway.
Besides, then Senator Joe Biden was talking about a vacancy caused by a resignation, and not about a vacancy caused by a death.
It was God's will that Justice Scalia's term would end now. He didn't resign.
1
Democrats should know that McConelll's action isn't as harmful as all that. After 8 years of the Obama presidency, the appellate courts have substantially more judges that were appointed by Democrats than Republicans. Decisions of these Courts therefore tend to be liberal. Cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court are heard by 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, and Kennedy. That gives a slight advantage to the liberals. Moreover, any case with a 4-4 vote results in upholding the generally liberal appellate court decision. It would be very helpful to seat a Democratic appointee as the ninth justice. But the present situation isn't so bad.
If the Republicans think that President Obama should not have his Supreme Court nominee considered because this is his final year in office, why don't they pass legislation that would ban presidents in their last year in office to do so?
I guess the constitution would not be in their favor.
They are continuing their ugly games from the past seven years.
I guess the constitution would not be in their favor.
They are continuing their ugly games from the past seven years.
3
The President has nominated a mainstream, respected jurist. While no one criticized Bork's intellect, his views were out of the mainstream. The Senate was correct to reject him. In 1986 the majority-Republican Senate had already given Reagan an extremist jurist for the Court, namely Scalia. So, Democrats, rather than abusing their "Advice and Consent" role, tried to use that power to prevent further politicizing the Court.
McConnell's behavior in this process is truly despicable and disingenuous. His assertions of the fictitious "Biden Rule" and "give the American people a say" rely on the ignorance of his audience rather than any love of democracy.
McConnell's behavior in this process is truly despicable and disingenuous. His assertions of the fictitious "Biden Rule" and "give the American people a say" rely on the ignorance of his audience rather than any love of democracy.
8
So when it comes to Supreme Court justices, the Republicans want to "let the people decide" But when it comes to Donald Trump, for whom "the people" are overwhelmingly voting, suddenly "the people" just don't know what's good for them and can't be trusted to decide?
It's long past time to Bork the entire Republican party.
[Note: I am by no means a Trump supporter, just pointing out the irony.]
It's long past time to Bork the entire Republican party.
[Note: I am by no means a Trump supporter, just pointing out the irony.]
5
I remember very well the Bork hearings. What struck me was his lack of empathy for women who were required to go through sterilization to keep their jobs. He could have said "this is the legal issue and here are the human components" but all he could come up with were the legal aurguments. Bring back Sandra Day O'Conner!
1
I would not be the least bit surprised that as we get closer to November the Senate Republicans' attitude toward Judge Garland changes dramatically, dictated solely by how their nominee is polling. If the prospect is a Clinton landslide, Judge Garland may look "mighty reasonable" in their eyes compared to what the R's suspect they may get from a President Clinton and a Democratic Senate a scant few months later. What an irony it would be at that point if the President and the nominee got together again in the Rose Garden to say "Never mind".
1
I cannot imagine that Judge Garland would ask to have his nomination withdrawn.
If the (R)s confirm Garland, they will have a YUUUUUGE problem with their radical right base, because they will have caved on their promise not even to consider any nominee.
If they fail to hold hearings and a vote, they will have a YUUUUUGE problem with the rest of the electorate for failing to do their jobs. I guess they can plead the "Rubio Rule" - in your final year of a Senatorial term, don't show up and don't vote.
Way to paint yourself into a corner, Mitch McConnell. You just got played by President Obama, bigtime. Whatever you do, you LOSE.
If the (R)s confirm Garland, they will have a YUUUUUGE problem with their radical right base, because they will have caved on their promise not even to consider any nominee.
If they fail to hold hearings and a vote, they will have a YUUUUUGE problem with the rest of the electorate for failing to do their jobs. I guess they can plead the "Rubio Rule" - in your final year of a Senatorial term, don't show up and don't vote.
Way to paint yourself into a corner, Mitch McConnell. You just got played by President Obama, bigtime. Whatever you do, you LOSE.
At the heart of the matter is a newfound attachment to the so called “Thurmond rule,” which isn’t really a rule but rather an idea (tradition?) that at some point in the presidential election year the US Senate will not confirm (consider) the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
I would think we’d see a push to formalize the ‘rule’ since there is no way to adjudicate and it is subject to interpretation (politics?).
Therefore, don't we need a Constitutional amendment stating the cutoff date for the President to nominate and the Judiciary Committee to consider?
First day of spring? After the primaries? Memorial Day? Last day of summer? Are there special exceptions?
Circulating the notion that at some point a sitting president loses his or her power to nominate is damaging and irresponsible -- and does a great disservice to the American people and our Constitution. Unless amended.
I would think we’d see a push to formalize the ‘rule’ since there is no way to adjudicate and it is subject to interpretation (politics?).
Therefore, don't we need a Constitutional amendment stating the cutoff date for the President to nominate and the Judiciary Committee to consider?
First day of spring? After the primaries? Memorial Day? Last day of summer? Are there special exceptions?
Circulating the notion that at some point a sitting president loses his or her power to nominate is damaging and irresponsible -- and does a great disservice to the American people and our Constitution. Unless amended.
42
The term "lame duck" appears nowhere in the constitution. Traditionally, the term is applied to a President only after the election of a new president. The election is a good way's off from now so there is no tradition of refusing to consider the president's nomination of any judicial candidTe.
Once again, the "conservatives" veer off in a radical direction. How is it we still refer to them as conservatives?
Once again, the "conservatives" veer off in a radical direction. How is it we still refer to them as conservatives?
And let us please remember that Senator Strom Thurmond was the leading, most open and notorious racist is the United States Senate. His "rule" was there to deny qualified blacks from appointment and confirmation.
1
McConnell is a disgrace. He's a disgrace to the country, a disgrace to the Senate, a disgrace to democracy, a disgrace to public service, a disgrace to the court, a disgrace to the constitution.
There is no justification for his position in this matter except raw political opportunism and childish cussedness.
There is no justification for his position in this matter except raw political opportunism and childish cussedness.
6
There is a huge difference between voting no on a nomination and not considering one at all. If the Republicans don't want him, they can vote no after he's given consideration. It's an even-handed approach. Alas, fairness and consideration to others are not Republican values. They are not adherents of the Golden Rule. And, they must not believe in karma either, why else would they play such a risky game?
4
I read lines like the following and shake my head: "Now is the time for the Senate to do their duty. Hold the hearings - vote up or down - it is really simple to do."
The ignorance exhibited by the vast multitude of semi-sophisticated NYT readers commenting here is amazing. The Senate's duty is simply to "provide advice and consent" to the President regarding the nominee he provides. If they advise the President that, for some reason, they will not hold hearings, or vote up or down on his nominee, then they have fulfilled their Constitutional obligation. Even Joe Biden understands this.
The ignorance exhibited by the vast multitude of semi-sophisticated NYT readers commenting here is amazing. The Senate's duty is simply to "provide advice and consent" to the President regarding the nominee he provides. If they advise the President that, for some reason, they will not hold hearings, or vote up or down on his nominee, then they have fulfilled their Constitutional obligation. Even Joe Biden understands this.
1
Did you think that President Obama would nominate anyone who is not a follower of the left's ideology? Please.
I'll remind you that in the past 30 years several leading Dem Senators (Biden, Schumer and others) have announced they would follow this exact policy. Just so happens they never had the opportunity, but they would have invoked this policy in a millisecond if vacancies had opened up in any Repub's lame duck year.
I'll remind you that in the past 30 years several leading Dem Senators (Biden, Schumer and others) have announced they would follow this exact policy. Just so happens they never had the opportunity, but they would have invoked this policy in a millisecond if vacancies had opened up in any Repub's lame duck year.
You know, that's a remarkably blatant misreading of the Constitution. But why am I surprised?
Dave
They gave their advice EVEN BEFORE THE IDENTITY OF THE NOMINEE WAS KNOWN.
That is known in some circles as "Just say NO."
Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah ... that was the advice of Nancy Reagan. (On an entirely different topic, but it makes as much sense as what McConnell says.)
Hopefully, the American people will express their will on November 8, 2016 about the 24 seats up for election that are presently held by Republicans in the Senate, and Mitch McConnell will not like the news. The American people have the power to remove him as Majority Leader, by removing his majority. Too bad he is not up for election this year. Time to wipe that silly grin off his face.
They gave their advice EVEN BEFORE THE IDENTITY OF THE NOMINEE WAS KNOWN.
That is known in some circles as "Just say NO."
Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah ... that was the advice of Nancy Reagan. (On an entirely different topic, but it makes as much sense as what McConnell says.)
Hopefully, the American people will express their will on November 8, 2016 about the 24 seats up for election that are presently held by Republicans in the Senate, and Mitch McConnell will not like the news. The American people have the power to remove him as Majority Leader, by removing his majority. Too bad he is not up for election this year. Time to wipe that silly grin off his face.
1
Since every citizen has the right to speak to their legislators, I think Mr Garland should visit each and every Senator as a private citizen, but let us know who he saw and who he didn't. The embarrassment of the public knowing just which Senators refused to see him should hound them for the rest of their days.
2
Can anyone name 6 Obama high level appointees that did not go to Harvard or Yale. Surely someone can! Another white man that went to Harvard, undoubtedly a friend and colleague of John Roberts. It is the indifference of the elite class in this country, and a deaf and blind Obama, that brings us to extremism of Sanders and Trump. Does anyone share my profound sense of disappointment in this pick and this President, in whom we had unattainable "hope"?
It is called strategy. Obama hope this middle of the road person gets chosen, out of sheer senate embarrassment. And then President Clinton and a democratic senate will have a chance to bring more progressive voices to the bench, to replace those who will surely step down in the next 4-8 years. You may not like this game, but it is not a deaf and blind move.
In a related matter, all the justices are either Jewish or Catholic. Why aren't the Protestants complaining?
Really, Mitch McConnell and the Republicans are just wonderful!! Watching them self-destruct is better than Downton Abbey. And now that that show is over, the fall of the Obstructionist Party is the best show in town. Not giving the Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote is denying the will of the people and the Constitution Mitch and Company have signed on to support and defend. But in the end, the November election will see a crushing defeat for the Republicans. And it will be a beautiful thing and a well-deserved comeuppance.
2
If Democrats really come out and vote that will happen. I sure hope they do.
1
Didn't Bork fire Archibald Cox, after Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Willam Ruckelshaus resigned in disgust over Nixon's order to fire the Special Prosecutor, as he closed in on him?
I believe it was called The Saturday Night Massacre.
Bork was a toad and had little integrity.
I believe it was called The Saturday Night Massacre.
Bork was a toad and had little integrity.
6
Judge Garland's handling of the Oklahoma City bombing is, by itself, sufficient to put the lie to any objection the Republican Senators have to his being even interviewed, never mind being voted on. The man more than deserves an open and honest vetting by Mitch "Gepetto" McConnell and his 53 Pinocchios.
I suggest that the current Senate forthwith adopt as its musical fanfare Charles Gounod's "The Funeral March of a Marionnette," opening each day's session with the theme song from Alfred Hitchcock's television show.
I suggest that the current Senate forthwith adopt as its musical fanfare Charles Gounod's "The Funeral March of a Marionnette," opening each day's session with the theme song from Alfred Hitchcock's television show.
4
By definition this will not be another Bork battle, because to have a battle, the nominee must have a hearing. The Republican Party of "No" has made it abundantly clear that there will be no Senate hearings. What I find so frustrating is the feeling of powerlessness, the fact that while, despite what Mr. McConnell may say, I am a "people" and I am not having any say. New Jersey has two Democratic Senators, so there is nothing I can do at the ballot box. I see no point in sending money to fund a Senatorial campaign in states where I do not reside, especially since we have seen in this election that money is frequently wasted with no positive effect. I desperately want to find a way to make my displeasure felt by the Republicans, but I cannot.
1
Donate to Hillary campaign. Get people registered to vote. That will help Democrats win. The more people that vote the more Democrats win.
2
The premise of the Republican position was that Obama could not be trusted to make an upright and impartial appointment, based on the merits of the nominee, and the Republicans were right. But Obama has risen to the occasion, acted like a statesman, and made an impeccable appointment. The Republican should now reverse themselves, and quickly confirm Judge Garland. It's time to turn the page, and cut the political posturing. A Republican President could not do better. -- John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
The republican were not right as your first sentence says. They never have been.
1
"The only way the Republicans can come out ahead in a public conversation about this particular nominee is by not having it."
That's exactly correct. And that's why Republicans should not have the public conversation (in the form of Senate hearings).
There's been plenty of hypocrisy to go around for both sides. Sure, Bork got an up-and-down vote. And then he got ridiculed just because his views didn't confirm with the liberal power brokers. Liberals accused Justice Thomas of infidelity - even as Democratic President Clinton did the same thing just a few years later. And in terms of that majority vote, it was Obama himself as Senator who said during the Alito hearings that Supreme Court nominations should be subject to the full 60 vote minimum of a fillibuster. Even that is a step better than both Biden in 1992 and Schumer in 2007 who both stated that a Republican President should get no further nominations to the bench.
So Obama nominates someone. But if it's a choice between grilling the candidate which would be used by liberal outlets to inspire the base and raise money ... or simply defer, I will choose defer.
Greenhouse said, "To the extent that the Supreme Court plays a role in shaping the mainstream, it is most often the role of a mirror." Well, then let the Supreme Court be a mirror not just in the courtroom but in the nomination itself. Let the American people decide in Nov who they want on the Supreme Court.
That's exactly correct. And that's why Republicans should not have the public conversation (in the form of Senate hearings).
There's been plenty of hypocrisy to go around for both sides. Sure, Bork got an up-and-down vote. And then he got ridiculed just because his views didn't confirm with the liberal power brokers. Liberals accused Justice Thomas of infidelity - even as Democratic President Clinton did the same thing just a few years later. And in terms of that majority vote, it was Obama himself as Senator who said during the Alito hearings that Supreme Court nominations should be subject to the full 60 vote minimum of a fillibuster. Even that is a step better than both Biden in 1992 and Schumer in 2007 who both stated that a Republican President should get no further nominations to the bench.
So Obama nominates someone. But if it's a choice between grilling the candidate which would be used by liberal outlets to inspire the base and raise money ... or simply defer, I will choose defer.
Greenhouse said, "To the extent that the Supreme Court plays a role in shaping the mainstream, it is most often the role of a mirror." Well, then let the Supreme Court be a mirror not just in the courtroom but in the nomination itself. Let the American people decide in Nov who they want on the Supreme Court.
"Liberals accused Justice Thomas of infidelity"
I thought it was sexual harassment. Remember the Coke can?
I thought it was sexual harassment. Remember the Coke can?
In the first year at law school, we learned the constitution, amendments and early seminal cases (i.e. Marbury). We studied the relative conceptual clarity of federalism and separation of powers. We learned to tease out the rationale in supreme court opinions, to see the path of stones painstakingly selected by the justices to get them across the river from question to answer. We admired their transparency and neutrality. We idolized these deep thinking, towering intellects whose work was beyond reproach. We marveled at their unbiased ability to derive irrefutable, immutable, logical conclusions from messy facts and law. We felt honored to be in the same club as this elite, non-political branch of government.
We were naive. The supreme court is and always has been a 3D political chess game with three players - the voters, the president, and the senate.
We were naive. The supreme court is and always has been a 3D political chess game with three players - the voters, the president, and the senate.
Republicans, upon taking control of the Senate, commented that 'now we must show we can govern.' Yet we see in the anger being tapped by their leading presidential candidate that they have failed to convince their own base, much less the rest of the country, that they can do just that. Now is the Republican's opportunity to step up, to fulfill their Constitutional duty, and 'to show that we can govern' by doing just that. Hold the hearings, vote on the nominee. Disapprove him if you will, even without evidence of any disqualification other than who nominated him in the first place -- but do your job, execute your duty, and hold the vote. Republicans must show that country comes before party, before politics, because until now they have repeatedly and sorely failed this test. I would say that Republican Senators should feel ashamed at how they are behaving, but they are politicians and thus presumed incapable of feeling shame... I truly hope that the voters will see what they are doing, and 'choose wisely' in the next election.
1
I'm not sure what the point of the Republican strategy is.
Case 1 - The Republicans ignore Obama's Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of Obama's term. During that time, a Democrat is elected President. Such election equates to a loss for Republicans because essentially they get the same overall result as when Obama was President - a nominee they don't want.
Case 2 - The Republicans ignore Obama's Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of Obama's term. During that time, a Republican is elected President. Such election equates to a loss for Republicans because, unless they have the power in the Senate to win this battle, the Democrats in the Senate would be free to employ the same obstructionist strategy in return. For 1 year, or 2 years, or more. Who is to say that they could not, if the Republicans are allowed to do so now?
The idea that blocking a nominee for "only" 1 year makes any more sense than blocking for 4 years is purely arbitrary. In both cases the Senate is refusing to carry out its work. If they appeal to the "Advise and Consent" clause for 1 year, the Democrats could appeal to it for 1 year and 1 day... or 1 year and 1 month, etc. If Scalia had died the day after Obama took office for a second time in 2013, would Republicans have been less opposed to filling the post?
True statesmanship sometimes involves compromise, which the GOP should do.
Case 1 - The Republicans ignore Obama's Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of Obama's term. During that time, a Democrat is elected President. Such election equates to a loss for Republicans because essentially they get the same overall result as when Obama was President - a nominee they don't want.
Case 2 - The Republicans ignore Obama's Supreme Court nominee for the remainder of Obama's term. During that time, a Republican is elected President. Such election equates to a loss for Republicans because, unless they have the power in the Senate to win this battle, the Democrats in the Senate would be free to employ the same obstructionist strategy in return. For 1 year, or 2 years, or more. Who is to say that they could not, if the Republicans are allowed to do so now?
The idea that blocking a nominee for "only" 1 year makes any more sense than blocking for 4 years is purely arbitrary. In both cases the Senate is refusing to carry out its work. If they appeal to the "Advise and Consent" clause for 1 year, the Democrats could appeal to it for 1 year and 1 day... or 1 year and 1 month, etc. If Scalia had died the day after Obama took office for a second time in 2013, would Republicans have been less opposed to filling the post?
True statesmanship sometimes involves compromise, which the GOP should do.
1
Bork did not believe in Liberal Democracy, he was an authoritarian and an anti-enlightenment reactionary who believed in a legal system and a government that favored the wealthy and entrenched authoritarian institutions against the rights and legal standing of all others. He fired the special prosecutor on Nixon's request because he respected Nixon's atuScalia was a leftist radical in comparison to Bork. His nomination to the Supreme Court just revealed the deep dislike and distrust of many in the Republican Party with democratic institutions and robustly protected individual rights.
5
Somebody should organize a state by state recall petition for every senator who refuses to allow a vote on Judge Garland's nomination to the supreme court.
4
Wouldn't get the signatures. Red meat republicans love this obstruction.
1
McConnell has already said the Senate will not hold hearings for Garland. I hope this act of sedition rips the Repubs from their Senate seats , and hopefully, house seats from this obstructionist party.
5
You might want to the read the Constitution. The senate gives 'advise and consent'. They already have. And there is no timetable on that.
1
Republicans know that women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, abortion rights and privacy rights will be issues before the Supreme Court. They don't want to have Senators saying things that could be at odds with what the Republican presidential candidate is going to say about his ideal Supreme Court candidate. Based on his record, Judge Garland would not pass muster with most Republican senators, but none of them will say that lest they be accused of seeking to overturn most of the rights that the Supreme Court has recognized in the last century or so.
1
McConnell cites :
1. The right of the American public to be involved in this decision.
2. Joe Biden of several decades ago.
3. His senate has more important legislative duties to administer on behalf of the American people i.e. the very recent opiate legislation.
He must have scratched out these silly talking points to serve up while being driven to the Senate this morning . . . or, more likely, a staffer.
As he spoke this arrogant pablum late this morning, I closed my eyes and imagined him to be what he would have been 160 years ago : a slave holding
senator from Kentucky desperate to protect his kind and maintain the status quo.
1. The right of the American public to be involved in this decision.
2. Joe Biden of several decades ago.
3. His senate has more important legislative duties to administer on behalf of the American people i.e. the very recent opiate legislation.
He must have scratched out these silly talking points to serve up while being driven to the Senate this morning . . . or, more likely, a staffer.
As he spoke this arrogant pablum late this morning, I closed my eyes and imagined him to be what he would have been 160 years ago : a slave holding
senator from Kentucky desperate to protect his kind and maintain the status quo.
3
First of all, the "Biden Rule" was a hypothetical situation, not real time, and not this far from the election itself. That said, it was wrong then and it is wrong now. I don't care what party Joe Biden was representing; his statement thwarted the intent of the Constitution and should've been disavowed by the committee as soon as the words were uttered.
Secondly, Mr. Bork was rejected by everyone, not just one party or the other. The issues Mr. Bork faced had more to do with _his_ positions than with the posturing of political parties. He had ample opportunity to present his judicial philosophy and he did....much to everyone's disappointment. He was a poor choice. Just because someone is nominated, it doesn't mean he/she is the right person for the job. That's why they hold hearings.
Thirdly, the Senate has been refusing to do its job for 8 years. This is not news. And the only thing they have to show for it is Donald Trump as the nominee presumptive. There's a resounding success story for you.
The GOP, with Trump poised to take the leadership role, once again demonstrates their lack of respect for the Constitution, and their utter disdain for We, the People. However, if We, the People continue to vote for Trump in the primaries, and return the same sorry collection of Congress Clowns to the Capitol's rotunda, we will, indeed, have the government we deserve.
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
Secondly, Mr. Bork was rejected by everyone, not just one party or the other. The issues Mr. Bork faced had more to do with _his_ positions than with the posturing of political parties. He had ample opportunity to present his judicial philosophy and he did....much to everyone's disappointment. He was a poor choice. Just because someone is nominated, it doesn't mean he/she is the right person for the job. That's why they hold hearings.
Thirdly, the Senate has been refusing to do its job for 8 years. This is not news. And the only thing they have to show for it is Donald Trump as the nominee presumptive. There's a resounding success story for you.
The GOP, with Trump poised to take the leadership role, once again demonstrates their lack of respect for the Constitution, and their utter disdain for We, the People. However, if We, the People continue to vote for Trump in the primaries, and return the same sorry collection of Congress Clowns to the Capitol's rotunda, we will, indeed, have the government we deserve.
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
4
It looks as though the story of Judge Garland's appointment is over, unless perha a president-elect Clinton affirms in November that she'll appoint someone else, to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate. In that event, I think Mitch McConnell would find principled reasons for his party to swiftly confirm Garland.
1
Good Job, President Obama. Now it is up to US - mainstream Americans - to bombard obstructionist republicans with communications telling them to CONFIRM the appointment. WE do not negotiate.
5
First, they are going to lose Senate seats over their obstructionist position. Haven't they noticed even Republican voters hate them? Second, they are going to end up facing the Supreme Court appointment of either President Clinton or President Trump. Garland is a solid choice but they are so used to obstructing, they just obstruct to obstruct, not even caring that they are just putting more nails in their own coffins.
26
Now would be a good time for the conservative and liberal press to examine Judge Garland's track records. I am a bit surprised at the emotion of this article in the absence of analytics for this nominee. Presuming him to be middle of the road with no eccentricities, I would love to see HClinton nominate him if she is elected....which I suspect even though I am not a HC fan.
To bring up Bork at this point seems odd: Bork clearly did have an oddly eccentric conservative bent, really much more so than CThomas or SAlito. I am guessing that Garland may be less conservative than Scalia or is he? I am guessing he is more like Kennedy or Roberts in perhaps a bit more liberal. Who knows? Please show us.
To bring up Bork at this point seems odd: Bork clearly did have an oddly eccentric conservative bent, really much more so than CThomas or SAlito. I am guessing that Garland may be less conservative than Scalia or is he? I am guessing he is more like Kennedy or Roberts in perhaps a bit more liberal. Who knows? Please show us.
1
They're egging voter anger on as much as Trump.
McConnell wants us all to just eat cake for a year---couldn't show much more disrespect for the populace at a time when the populace is beyond fed up.
GOP is imploding so hey let's blow up all three gov't branches, is that it? They're making the GOP look even worse, if it's possible.
McConnell wants us all to just eat cake for a year---couldn't show much more disrespect for the populace at a time when the populace is beyond fed up.
GOP is imploding so hey let's blow up all three gov't branches, is that it? They're making the GOP look even worse, if it's possible.
38
Ah, Ms. Greenhouse, I do respectfully, platonically, love you. As you say, Bring it on. Not since Nina Totenberg's instruction to Senator Simpson of Wyoming have I been so smitten.
19
Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court arrived at the Senate dead-on-arrival because of Bork's participation in the "Saturday night massacre."
11
If holding a full committee hearing, and then a vote before the entire Senate, is "dead-on-arrival" then what would one call refusing to consider anyone nominated by a popularly elected president?
As I recall, the problems with Bork went far beyond his opinions. I had to read some of his written opinions for work I was doing at the time--I am not a lawyer--and I was surprised by the insensitive tone of what he had written. Not just rejecting the legal argument, but belittling the person. Then he testified in front of the Senate committee, and oh dear. I am not a lawyer, but I am a psychologist. I thought he was missing some basic human equipment that rendered him unacceptable as a judge. The majority of the Senate must have agreed. His nomination may have been political, but I do not think his rejection was. Republicans, of course, have to come up with some kind of argument to rationalize their behavior regardless of how far fetched.
28
I agree they should holed hearings. But unlike the Bork hearings and the behavior of their Democratic counterparts, I'd hope the Republicans skip the distortions, lies, and slander.
1
"Distortions, lies, and slander"??
Are you referring to the actual 1987 hearings, or the way the GOP is describing them 29 years later? I can't tell.
As epitomized by Trump today, everything that has come, or is coming out of the GOP mouths is instantly subject to "distortions, lies, and slander", even when its unedited video, in order to support the idea of Republican victimhood in all things by all comers. Such an infantile party, puffing out its chest, waving their flags, and wearing bad hair and fake orange tans. So much for the 'adults' in the room.
Are you referring to the actual 1987 hearings, or the way the GOP is describing them 29 years later? I can't tell.
As epitomized by Trump today, everything that has come, or is coming out of the GOP mouths is instantly subject to "distortions, lies, and slander", even when its unedited video, in order to support the idea of Republican victimhood in all things by all comers. Such an infantile party, puffing out its chest, waving their flags, and wearing bad hair and fake orange tans. So much for the 'adults' in the room.
And what exactly were the distortions, lies and slander about Judge Bork? One of the most significant things against him was his role in firing Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, something both Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than do, demonstrating that while Richardson and Ruckelshaus had integrity, Bork's was very suspect. And, of course, then President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy who sailed thru the confirmation process.
Seriously? Both before and after his nomination hearings, Robert Bork proved time and time again that he was unfit for the Court. Paranoid, devoid of character and obsessed with his own ambition; he would have been as great an embarrassment to the Court as Scalia.
By the Bork comparison, Ms Greenhouse means a hearing. I think she also means a hearing on the principle of executive authority by a judge who upheld the President's authority.
I find it interesting what the author considers mainstream. If the ideas espoused are so mainstream why must they be implemented by courts - not by legislatures?
1
To the extent yours isn't a disingenuous question, because the GOP-dominated legislatures are in no mood to do the people's business. They'd rather collect a paycheck sitting on their hands than even going through the motions of doing their jobs.
If the publicans couldn't lie they would have nothing to say. goldberg may be that dumb however. The real shame is not that bork was voted down but that scalia was confirmed.
11
Obama to McConnell: "Go ahead. Bork my nominee. That word doesn't mean what you think it means."
4
I suspect Garland's anti-gun judicial record will earn him some Democrat opposition. And there are the people, that huge 2nd Amendment civil rights movement that will raise a deafening roar against a man who might be able to undo decades of hard work and hard won civil rights decisions such as Heller v. DC.
1
Appropriate choice of initials.
Conservative objectives with regards to the laws are fundamental disagreements with the proposition that our country should treat everyone equally and that all decisions regarding laws and public policies should be determined by democratic institutions. Conservatives believe that more wealth, more influence, and more private power should result in greater say and consideration than those who lack these indicators of personal worth, that the poor and marginalized should have little or no say or consideration in the development of laws and of public policies. Most Republicans have for generations consistently insisted that ours is not a democracy although it is a republic. They would like the majority of the people to have less say where it conflicts with what they want.
11
He's better off if the Republicans don't vote since, if he is denied, he would be damaged goods should Hillary win the Presidency.
While it's true that Bork gave answers at his confirmation hearing that the Senators didn't like, it should never be forgotten (and always pointed out) that he was nominated with everyone knowing that he had fired Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor during the Watergate Scandal. Others in the Justice Department resigned rather than do the dirty deed.
Judge Bork dug his own grave in more ways than one.
Judge Bork dug his own grave in more ways than one.
22
This is the least of their problems. If they don't solve the Trump problem and the Tea Party stranglehold on the budget, they will basically cease to exist as a governing party. The Supreme Court appointment is at least a third order problem and maybe the only thing they can get done, forgetting about anything positive on behalf of even their own base. They are fooling fewer and fewer people.
12
To gauge Robert Bork's character and judgement, one only has to remember his role in the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" during the Watergate debacle.
14
So what? Nixon had a right to fire Cox. Bork chose to remain in his job rather than provoke a constitutional crisis.
I think that Merrick Garland is a good pick because in his speech he mentioned a lot about the justice system and he has similar beliefs as Scalia and I think that he would want garland because he is true to the constitution
2
Thanks for this. I should remember these details, but I don't and thus rely on your excellent work.
1
Adam Liptak, the Times legal reporter, has characterized Scalia as a legal giant. What ever was he thinking? Scalia's originalist theories were a smokescreen designed to obfuscate. Who would have guessed after the Bork hearings that worse was yet to come in the persons of Thomas, Alito and of course, Nino!
7
Mr. Liptak was correct, and it is neither progressive or liberal to deny intellectual achievement.
1
Since Bork honestly answered that he thought the Constitution was mute on abortion, Supreme Court nominees have adopted a strategy of refusing to answer questions on controversial constitutional issues. The dodge is that these issues may one day be part of a case that comes before the Supreme Court. So it is unlikely that senators will be able to lean if Garland thinks the Second Amendment protects the individual rights to bar arms or whether executive orders that nullify acts passed by Congress violate the Constitution.
1
My hats off to Judge Merrick Garland for being willing to take on this battle with the Republican Senate.
36
Yup. And has anything from the GOP been as heartfelt, as human, as patriotic as the Judge's remarks from the Rose Garden today?
Far as I can see, put this guy in the Court. By next Tuesday.
Far as I can see, put this guy in the Court. By next Tuesday.
Talk about being willing to take the bullet in a good cause.
1
Why is President Obama rushing this Supreme Court nomination. I agree with the Republicans when they say we should wait until after the election before deciding upon a new justice. This is too important a position to take so lightly. We want to have the best qualified candidate who will probably be deciding some of the most important decisions and court cases of the day. Let's relax and take a deep breath.
3
The problem with this argument is that it is an old tradition that the Republican leadership just made up when Scalia died. Garland's credentials define the idea of "well qualified." I suggest you study them. After the election in November--8 months from now--Obama will be a lame duck. He is in no way a lame duck now, and the government is not supposed to stop running in the last year of a president's term. Waiting until November to fill this position is not taking a deep breath; it is an abdication of responsibility.
72
But why should he wait wait? This is only March. What's the rush, you ask? This is an appointment to the Supreme Court -- and it's President Obama's job to nominate a qualified jurist -- as he has. This is pure and simple more blatant obstruction from the Republicans. And the more people who buy into that rationale, the sadder our country is for it.
4
He is not rushing it. Do you think Obama only began thinking about possible SC nominees only after he heard Scalia had died? Perhaps our President can do more than one thing at a time.
4
McConnell just shot himself in the foot. Democrats will control the White House and the Senate in 2017 and will push through a much more liberal and younger justice.
6
Garland is a centrist candidate. Bork simply was not.
8
This is the most despicable group of GOP senators I can remember, and it might be the wort in history.
Mitch McConnell will be a footnote in history as a detriment to the democratic process. The people of Kentucky should hide themselves from decent people for electing such a person to the senate.
Mitch McConnell will be a footnote in history as a detriment to the democratic process. The people of Kentucky should hide themselves from decent people for electing such a person to the senate.
18
I am so furious at McConnell et al that I can hardly see straight. How dare they speak of the people having "a voice" as if President Obama being elected twice was not the clear voice of the people! His quote of what he called the Biden rule is nonsense. Biden was stating a hypothetical at a time when there was no vacancy on the court. How dare the GOP claim to be defenders of the Constitution. There is no foot note exempting the President from certain privileges or duties in his 4th year.
If Mr. Romney currently occupied the White House the only thing McConnell and his cabal would be saying is, "Please send your nominee. We will expedite the process so that the court can be about its important business." Hypocrites!
If Mr. Romney currently occupied the White House the only thing McConnell and his cabal would be saying is, "Please send your nominee. We will expedite the process so that the court can be about its important business." Hypocrites!
61
I agree with you completely. I've been livid about this since McConnell had the audacity to make the announcement mere hours after Justice Scalia died.
Not true. The hypocrisy is with Joe Biden. He is on tape with his position. Anyway, Hillary will probably win the general so you will get your pick of a liberal. If only Barack could learn how to work with the opposition. Working with the opposition is a requirement for all effective leaders. Barack may have done some good things but the state of race relations will certainly be his legacy when the final chapter is written.
The senate has the right to "advise and consent," meaning they can decide to hold hearings or not. Elections have consequences and the House and Senate turned republican.
1
If there was a political risk to the Republicans refusing to consider Obama's nominee they wouldn't control the senate. This is only a big deal for liberals.
4
Given that the Senate's currently sitting on its can and that folks are less than thrilled by this, I have a sneaking feeling that you're gonna become a lot more innarested around the first week in November.
3
Folks are less than thrilled with the Democrats crony capitalism and Hillary as a candidate. Most folks also care more about the failure of globalization to bring more and better jobs than whether Garland gets a hearing.
The commentarium's chatter is so dishonest. Today's column by Thomas Friedman in support of TPP cites 900,000 manufacturing jobs added since 2010 while failing to mention that almost 5 million jobs were lost between 1997 and 2010. Blue collar workers know they have lost good paying jobs and haven't had a real increase in wages in 35 years.
The Democrats may ignore them but Trump doesn't. If everyone was so thrilled with the Democrats and Obama Trump wouldn't be a viable candidate.
The commentarium's chatter is so dishonest. Today's column by Thomas Friedman in support of TPP cites 900,000 manufacturing jobs added since 2010 while failing to mention that almost 5 million jobs were lost between 1997 and 2010. Blue collar workers know they have lost good paying jobs and haven't had a real increase in wages in 35 years.
The Democrats may ignore them but Trump doesn't. If everyone was so thrilled with the Democrats and Obama Trump wouldn't be a viable candidate.
2
Michael S
You must think this does not set a precedent.
If the (R)s persist, there will come a day when the (D)s will hold something off using the same flimsy excuse. When that happens, they will tell the (R)s to "go pound sand." The (R)s will have a fit. Wait and see.
You must think this does not set a precedent.
If the (R)s persist, there will come a day when the (D)s will hold something off using the same flimsy excuse. When that happens, they will tell the (R)s to "go pound sand." The (R)s will have a fit. Wait and see.
1
Thanks for recounting the history of what "getting Borked" actually entailed. I had always had the impression from the way the term is used that the full senate was never allowed a vote on Bork--perhaps that's how conservatives would want the story remembered. But this "poster boy" for obstruction by senate Democrats in fact received an up or down vote. Further proof that there is no precedent whatsoever for the kind of obstruction that Republican senators are now engaged in.
65
The discussion about Bork has brought back all the memories of Watergate, and that master of obstructionism himself; Richard Nixon. As he circled the drain, he attempted the most daring act of obstructionism by firing Archibald Cox, which of course, led to the Saturday Night Massacre, enabled by Robert Bork.
That, perhaps, is the precedent for the GOP's actions today. I guess they don't see that they are also circling the drain. Or, maybe they do, and are just hoping for the best. Whatever that is.
That, perhaps, is the precedent for the GOP's actions today. I guess they don't see that they are also circling the drain. Or, maybe they do, and are just hoping for the best. Whatever that is.
I don't expect the Republicans to give Garland a hearing, and I also don't expect the Republicans to confirm anyone nominated by Hillary Clinton if Republicans maintain a majority in the Senate. Republican have shown a willingness to shut down government if they don't get their way, so why should they hesitate to keep the Court short one Justice short, rather than confirm someone who is not a radical right wing activist judge like Scalia? How many judicial vacancies are there now because Republicans refuse to confirm well-qualified lower court judges?
44
How many vacancies are there on the NJ Supreme Court, because Democrats won't even give any of Governor Christie's nominees a hearing?
The sword cuts both ways.
The sword cuts both ways.
1
Ms Greenhouse, thanks for bringing (once more, as you always do) a bit of sanity to this debate.
41
It's pretty clear to anyone following the election that it looks to be Trump vs. Clinton, with the edge going to Clinton.
So the GOP has a choice: Confirm the extremely moderate Merrick Garland or wait until President Clinton, with a new Democratic Senate majority, nominates a much more liberal candidate.
And I also suspect that Chuck Schumer, the new Senate Majority Leader, will eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.
Republicans used to play this game so well. What happened?
So the GOP has a choice: Confirm the extremely moderate Merrick Garland or wait until President Clinton, with a new Democratic Senate majority, nominates a much more liberal candidate.
And I also suspect that Chuck Schumer, the new Senate Majority Leader, will eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.
Republicans used to play this game so well. What happened?
14
Methinks a Democrat will win - and it may well be Bernie Sanders! Don't sell him short. The media's assertion that only Hillary is electable is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Feel the Bern - and give him a chance. His nominee will be every bit as good as hers - and far better than Trump's.
Or, if the Senate does't wish to do their work, they should submit their resignation of all those members unwilling to do their work !
32
The Republicans would be crazy to "Bork" Garland. He's a centrist. But I guess in the current Republican canon (where Paul Ryan figures as some sort of moderate, being a tiny bit to the left of Ted Cruz), Garland probably qualifies as a bleeding-heart liberal, so far has the GOP swung to the extreme right.
33
I know math is hard for Republicans in Congress. Last time I checked - the president does a four year term - not a three year term. I fail to understand the logic that the people need to express their opinion by electing a new President. The people have elected President Obama with + 5-million votes - sounds to me the people have spoken and expect the current President who is still the official President of the United States to do his duty and pick a nominee - which he has.
Now is the time for the Senate to do their duty. Hold the hearings - vote up or down - it is really simple to do.
Now is the time for the Senate to do their duty. Hold the hearings - vote up or down - it is really simple to do.
56
The Republican establishment has become so obstructionist that it is with utter delight that Trump has come along and the Republican base is following him like the pied piper. Take that, Mitch McConnell. You reap what you sow.
22
It appears as if the writer is one of those that mistakenly believe (or hope) that the constitution is a "living document". It is, only in the sense that it can be changed, but not in the sense that a new interpretation will change its meaning. The constitution, along with other writings of the era (think Federalist Papers) spell out with was meant at the inception; those meanings do not change because one side or the other (both corrupt) has a majority.
4
Perhaps you'd care to point out where the Constitution says that Saint Ronnie gets to appoint while a lame duck, but any Black President does not.
12
It's pretty clear, then: the President selects/appoints a nominee, the Senate offers advice and consent.
It doesn't stipulate that the President can only appoint in a given timeframe.
It doesn't stipulate that the President can only appoint in a given timeframe.
18
Exactly. So what part of "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court ..." do you not understand?
To be told by GOP members of the Senate that he should not nominate anyone is directly contrary to the US Constitution.
To be told by GOP members of the Senate that he should not nominate anyone is directly contrary to the US Constitution.
14
The obvious answer to this dilemma is Civil War, not between the States, but between the Republican & Democratic Parties.It should take place in the Rose Bowl that seats 100,000 people, evenly divided between Party Loyalty.The weapons would be microphones, the group that can out shout the other wins, & can appoint whomever judge they want to the Supreme Court. As silly as this sounds it is no less silly than the bickering that goes on between the two parties.Lets vote out the Children in Congress & replace them with adults.
10
You forget that the right has been arming itself with high-powered killing machines and vast armories of ammunition. They're ready for this fight, and sadly, the Bundys have shown that it's not easy or simple to stop the nonsense.
20
Susan,
I didn't forget, I recently saw a militia on TV, at first I thought it was the Ukraine, but I believe it was in Wisconsin..Trump is no longer funny.There is real hatred out there, & it's time to call a truce, but who commands the respect that both sides will listen to.
I didn't forget, I recently saw a militia on TV, at first I thought it was the Ukraine, but I believe it was in Wisconsin..Trump is no longer funny.There is real hatred out there, & it's time to call a truce, but who commands the respect that both sides will listen to.
1
Yes because sound pressure level is always the best way to resolve delicate and complex problems. Btw microphones by themselves make no sound: you will also need mixers, power amplifiers and speakers.
Linda Greenhouse's writing is refreshingly wise and clear.
I am also grateful for her taking on the Bork comparison and spelling it out.
"the “mainstream” has no fixed definition in any event. It is the product of lived experience, always up for grabs as norms and expectations change. To the extent that the Supreme Court plays a role in shaping the mainstream, it is most often the role of a mirror"
That said, it is important to note that "the people" are only part of the new right's strategy as upholders of property and power for the few who pay for elections, which have become very expensive. The media, TV in particular, are guilty of laughing all the way to the bank at our expense, making big money the decider.
I've been reading Dark Money (Jane Mayer) which is not news to me, but it is shocking as to the depth and longevity of the power grab by profiteers, looters and polluters. There is nothing they will not do to make their money exclude the voice of ordinary struggling working stiffs. Too bad those working stiffs appear either too busy or too socially accepting of the vast superstructure of lies that works against their interests.
Bad faith is the name of the game. We need to stop swallowing the poison pills.
Going a mite off topic, but not altogether, this includes my purist friends on the left, who are threatening to take their toys and go home rather than vote. There is no better way to make things worse than this kind of magic thinking.
I am also grateful for her taking on the Bork comparison and spelling it out.
"the “mainstream” has no fixed definition in any event. It is the product of lived experience, always up for grabs as norms and expectations change. To the extent that the Supreme Court plays a role in shaping the mainstream, it is most often the role of a mirror"
That said, it is important to note that "the people" are only part of the new right's strategy as upholders of property and power for the few who pay for elections, which have become very expensive. The media, TV in particular, are guilty of laughing all the way to the bank at our expense, making big money the decider.
I've been reading Dark Money (Jane Mayer) which is not news to me, but it is shocking as to the depth and longevity of the power grab by profiteers, looters and polluters. There is nothing they will not do to make their money exclude the voice of ordinary struggling working stiffs. Too bad those working stiffs appear either too busy or too socially accepting of the vast superstructure of lies that works against their interests.
Bad faith is the name of the game. We need to stop swallowing the poison pills.
Going a mite off topic, but not altogether, this includes my purist friends on the left, who are threatening to take their toys and go home rather than vote. There is no better way to make things worse than this kind of magic thinking.
37
Why do so few articles mention that it is a requirement in the constitution for the president to nominate a person for the supreme court? The exact word used is "shall". Having worked with military specifications I know that the word shall is considered to be the highest priority of requirement, indicating that what follows is a hard requirement and must be done.
58
So why do Senate Republicans want to let the next president nominate a replacement for Scalia? The only way the next president nominates someone more to their liking than Garland is if Cruz wins the election, which at this point seems a remote possibility. The only explanation is that they want to use fear of a Clinton nominee to the court to raise money and votes for Republicans running for the Senate.
20
Bork and Thomas were scorched earth by Democrats.
They were appealing to and being edged on by the Progressives.
If the shoe were on the other foot, the NYT would have a front page editorial opposing.
They were appealing to and being edged on by the Progressives.
If the shoe were on the other foot, the NYT would have a front page editorial opposing.
5
The shoe was on the other foot, Mr False Observer. Read Linda's excellent essay again. After Reagan nominee Bork was defeated, he nominated a moderate, Kennedy...who won a unanimous confirmation despite occurring in Reagan's last year in office. What does that tell you? I mean, what does it tell people with integrity...something, you Mr, False Observer, lack.
60
Bork was a lunatic who was unqualified for the high court. Same goes for Thomas.
Both of those cretins received a vote.\
The shoe HAS been on the other foot, SH, with Anthony Kennedy.
You're very bright.
Both of those cretins received a vote.\
The shoe HAS been on the other foot, SH, with Anthony Kennedy.
You're very bright.
38
Excuse me, Thomas currently sits on the court in spite of his considerable baggage and his opinion that affirmative action cheapened his law degree, a fate he wanted to prevent for anyone else. What truth do you mean?
2
I thought the Founders intended the Senate to be the adults? I am so tired of this race to the bottom: "your side did X, so we're going to do X too! or maybe even 2X!", even if X is clearly wrong. I lost track of the number of times McConnell said "Biden" (as in "Biden rule") this morning to justify not holding hearings for this nominee. But even if the Biden "rule" had ever actually come into play (it never did), it would have been wrong. If it had been true that Bork was not provided a hearing, it would have been wrong. Ever hear that two wrongs don't make a right, Mr. McConnell? How is insisting on repeating everyone else's mistakes ever going to make things better?
28
Mitch McConnell wants the next President to name the nominee to the court! Does he really want Donald Trump to do that? I like Judge Judy but...
13
Trump would appoint his sister, now that's a candidate republicans can like.
1
I think they should honor the "Biden Rule"---he is the Vice President and like Fredo--"he knows things"--
2
Except that when Vice President Biden was chair of the Senate judiciary committee, the nominees all had hearings and votes in the Senate. He did his job well.
11
There's no such thing as the Biden rule.
1
Bork & Garland, apples & oranges.
''I get a little tired of it being portrayed as the only thing I ever did,'' Judge Robert H. Bork once said about his role at a critical moment in the Watergate scandals, what was widely referred to at the time as the ''Saturday Night Massacre.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/02/us/bork-irked-by-emphasis-on-his-role-...
''I get a little tired of it being portrayed as the only thing I ever did,'' Judge Robert H. Bork once said about his role at a critical moment in the Watergate scandals, what was widely referred to at the time as the ''Saturday Night Massacre.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/02/us/bork-irked-by-emphasis-on-his-role-...
3
He can irk away. Myself, I remember that Bork was third in line to issue that order, because the two Republicans further up the food chain stood on decent principle, told Nixon to take a hike, and resigned.
7
So the Senate Republicans don't want to fulfill their oaths of office this year? I say fine, you don't want the jobs, we'll take them off your hands in November. They could not make a stronger argument for voting a Democratic ticket if they tried.
54
Thank god we found another white male Harvard graduate to nominate. No one else could possibly be qualified.
2
Don't be fool. Garland is highly qualified.
15
Obama's last previous two nominee's were women...so what's your point. Obama picked a white male to make the Republicans squirm...hey, he looks just like you and you said you liked him before...so what's your problem now!!!
29
No, my point is everyone on the court graduated from Harvard or Yale law. It is more than a little inbred. Surely we can find some diversity from that? Are there no other law schools in the country that produce thoughtful jurists?
1
I can't even handle their pettiness anymore! Grow up! I've never seen a bunch of people so juvenile in their behavior as the current state of the Republican Party! Not doing their jobs just to block Obama from doing his. Suggesting people riot in the streets or beat people up if they don't support them. Lying non-stop and not even caring that we know they are and can prove it. Calling people nasty names just for disagreeing with them or daring to prove they lied about something. I'm so sick of it. Who voted for these babies? Why? I don't get it. Can we stop doing that please? It's time for a grown-up government. Let's stop tolerating this behavior and make them all do their jobs we pay them to do and check their egos at the freaking door. Enough.
52
You want pettiness. Judge Bork's video rental records were examined to see if any dirt could be gleaned. Turned out he liked westerns. Bork was endorsed by dozens of bipartisan legal scholars including Lloyd Cutler and Griffin Bell, as well as justice Potter Stewart Chief Justice Burger, and Gerald Ford, no raging right winger! They railroaded him from their podiums with vicious innuendo and ad homenim attacks that were never before seen in a senate Supreme Court hearing. A distinguished judge unanimously approved in 1981 to the Circuit Court of Appeals and he was treated like a figure of George Wallace. The democrats used him like a political piñata to score points against a wounded president. The fact that a few Republicans from
Blue states choice to lend a hand means nothing.
Thie democrats politicized the court when they rejected Bork. Now we get nominees with little or no paper trails or critical thinking that tests the boundaries of legal reasoning and jurisprudence as a result of the Bork hearing. It's only fair that politics is at the heart of this nomination too as the balance in the court is at stake. So be it.
Blue states choice to lend a hand means nothing.
Thie democrats politicized the court when they rejected Bork. Now we get nominees with little or no paper trails or critical thinking that tests the boundaries of legal reasoning and jurisprudence as a result of the Bork hearing. It's only fair that politics is at the heart of this nomination too as the balance in the court is at stake. So be it.
5
So you agree. Garland should have a hearing and up or down vote.
6
Robert Bork was treated in the fashion he'd earned, by being gutless enough to fire a special prosecutor for phony reasons after his two superiors (in more senses than one!) had refused to do the deed for Nixon, and by makong it clear that he intended to go after Roe v. Wade no matter what the law said.
9
As we all know, this is not about precedent, constitutional responsibility, ensuring the complete roster of justices or sound governmental policy.
It is, as expected, a sad continuance of the recalcitrant obstructionists failing to perform their duties in an effort to "have it their way".
As Lindsay Graham stated after the appointment of Elena Kagan, "She wouldn't have been my first choice, but elections have consequences......"
It is, as expected, a sad continuance of the recalcitrant obstructionists failing to perform their duties in an effort to "have it their way".
As Lindsay Graham stated after the appointment of Elena Kagan, "She wouldn't have been my first choice, but elections have consequences......"
33
Odd that Republicans think the politicization of the Court began with the Bork nomination. What about their filibuster (in cahoots with the proto-Republican Dixiecrats) of Fortas' nomination as Chief Justice?
20
Democrats led that! They had the majority and chaired the Judiciary Committee. Besides Fortas was ethically challenged and corrupt.
1
In retrospect....maybe should have confirmed Bork instead of moving on to Kennedy. Obama could have made a third appointment and we wouldn't have the Kennedy problem that persists. Democratic Senate could have confirmed and post-Scalia....we would have one pending Obama appointment and only three conservatives left.
If Trump wins the general then he has every right to pick his own nominee to the Supreme Court. Hulk Hogan comes to mind.
10
I’m just an old lawyer, but it should be obvious that the views of the liberal editors and bloggers here would be just the opposite if the current president were George W. Bush in this election year instead of Barack Obama. The sanctimonious and self-righteous criticisms of republicans, sounding in intellect, are instead simply that of a disingenuous intellectual elite that claims to know justice, when in fact it is full of hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest thinking that falls on deaf ears of any fair minded person.
2
A lawyer should know better than to engage in unsupported speculation about what others think and would do under other circumstances. The confirmation of Justice Kennedy and even the ultimate confirmation of Clarence Thomas indicate that you are wrong. There is no historical instance in which a Democratic Senate refused to hold hearings on a Republican president's nominee, and it is a precedent that a party confident of its future would hesitate to establish.
21
As another old lawyer, I disagree. A Bush nominee would receive a hearing from a democrat controlled Senate. Whether such a nominee would get confirmed or not would depend on who he or she was and the hearing process.
20
Yes you are and no it's not.
10
A new Bork battle? No. Bork was shot down because he was an ideologue, a glaringly inappropriate Supreme Court nominee. Garland is said to be respected by one and all. So no false equivalency, please.
31
The article is clear that Merrick Garland is no Robert Bork. The headline however is misleading and suggests that false equivalency
6
"The president might even say: Remember Robert Bork? Treat my nominee in the same way."
OK - we'll bring out a litany of unsubstantiated claims regarding how he might rule on cases and have the ranking rapist/drunkard senator spew them from the Senate Chamber. We'll then encourage other groups to believe these lies and run days of ads promoting them. Finally subject him to a hearing in front of bitter and resentful politicians who think he's to blame for a scandal akin to the Saturday Night Massacre.
OK - we'll bring out a litany of unsubstantiated claims regarding how he might rule on cases and have the ranking rapist/drunkard senator spew them from the Senate Chamber. We'll then encourage other groups to believe these lies and run days of ads promoting them. Finally subject him to a hearing in front of bitter and resentful politicians who think he's to blame for a scandal akin to the Saturday Night Massacre.
1
Of course, its about this President. The elephants will not give him the time of day as they have not for the past 7 years. Still bitter all this time. Well it appears that the voters may give them Donald Trump. Give this choice a hearing so the USA public can see obstruction first hand.
21
Does the recommendation that the Garland nomination follow the example of the Bork nomination include all the nastiness generated by those opposing the nomination?
On the other hand, the influence of Robert Bork and Justice Scalia can be seen in this nomination. Judge Garland went out of his way to point out that he saw his role as interpreting the Constitution and laws, not in making laws. Such obeisance to the letter of the law rather than what one wishes it should be would not have been an issue a few decades ago.
On the other hand, the influence of Robert Bork and Justice Scalia can be seen in this nomination. Judge Garland went out of his way to point out that he saw his role as interpreting the Constitution and laws, not in making laws. Such obeisance to the letter of the law rather than what one wishes it should be would not have been an issue a few decades ago.
1
Republicans are secure in their Congressional districts and Senate seats thanks to gerrymandering in the former and their stronghold in the Old Dominion south by the latter. They have seceded and run their own government of one dollar, one vote; no ID, no vote that keeps the plantation running on slave wages. They don't have to follow the precedent of a government they don't believe in and consider foreign, especially one headed by a foreigner.
15
The republicans are showing why our founding fathers did not want to have the direct election of senators. How about we do away with the 17th amendment and say that the Senators need to be elected by the state legislatures with a two thirds majority and can be remove and replaced with the same two thirds vote.
It would eliminate the need for senators to raise campaign funds, and they could do the right thing and not have to worry about losing in a primary.
The republican law makers are so worried about doing the right thing and losing in a primary that they have lost their entire party in a primary.
It would eliminate the need for senators to raise campaign funds, and they could do the right thing and not have to worry about losing in a primary.
The republican law makers are so worried about doing the right thing and losing in a primary that they have lost their entire party in a primary.
9
I left the United States 13 years ago because of Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. After mis-managing the economy through deregulation the resultant melt down and great recession confirmed my decision to leave.
Obama's election offered hope that the investment banks would be held accountable for the recession along with the war mongering Bush and Cheney for their unnecessary wars and 3 trillion debt to pay for them. Obama held no one accountable for anything.
Now, in its latest from of obstruction, the Republican Senate is holding up a Supreme Court nomination with another childish tantrum.
All cultures have problems, but America's are mostly avoidable and are primarily a result of incompetence. The current election held out one bright hope in Senator Sanders but it appears he will be thrown on the trash heap by the voters.
Becoming an expatriate in my multi-cultural village in Provence was the best decision I've ever made!
Obama's election offered hope that the investment banks would be held accountable for the recession along with the war mongering Bush and Cheney for their unnecessary wars and 3 trillion debt to pay for them. Obama held no one accountable for anything.
Now, in its latest from of obstruction, the Republican Senate is holding up a Supreme Court nomination with another childish tantrum.
All cultures have problems, but America's are mostly avoidable and are primarily a result of incompetence. The current election held out one bright hope in Senator Sanders but it appears he will be thrown on the trash heap by the voters.
Becoming an expatriate in my multi-cultural village in Provence was the best decision I've ever made!
9
One would think that now as the Republicans reap the reward of a base, that having caught on to the fact that they have not, in fact, been capable of fulfilling disingenuous promises that require ignorance of the basic facts of the way that the government actually work and not impressed with their empty symbolic gestures, resulting in the elevation of two egomaniacs with loyalty to no one but themselves, the party leaders might decide to reconsider their modus operandi and begin the process of behaving responsibly and allowing rational governance to begin to persuade their irrational and angry base that they actually represent a serious alternative to two serial fabricators on a mission to erase them.
But, no, failing to recognize the fact that their tactics of unprecedented obstruction, disrespect and spectacle are responsible for engendering the dangerous political climate threatening not only the country, but themselves, they are soldiering on and choosing all three conditions in this, dare I say it, trumped up campaign to cripple a president who is not running in the next election, which is looking more and more problematic, if not disastrous, for their team.
But, no, failing to recognize the fact that their tactics of unprecedented obstruction, disrespect and spectacle are responsible for engendering the dangerous political climate threatening not only the country, but themselves, they are soldiering on and choosing all three conditions in this, dare I say it, trumped up campaign to cripple a president who is not running in the next election, which is looking more and more problematic, if not disastrous, for their team.
8
Judge Garland,
In all sincerity I congratulate you for stepping into this nomination. You have courage. Good luck, and I hope to see you(r confirmation hearings) soon.
In all sincerity I congratulate you for stepping into this nomination. You have courage. Good luck, and I hope to see you(r confirmation hearings) soon.
34
Don't tell me Merrick Garland is a moderate liberal because there is no such thing.
1
OK, he's a moderate. Happy now? (That's moderate on the scale of what most Americans regard as moderate, not what the extremists --of either party -- think.)
1
Current SCOTUS - zero Protestants, eight Ivy Leaguers.
Garland - non-Protestant Ivy Leaguer.
So much for "diversity", Mr. President.
Garland - non-Protestant Ivy Leaguer.
So much for "diversity", Mr. President.
Charles...maybe you should check on who runs the senate. they have to approve of the nominee. The republicans hate diversity...they want someone who looks like them. Obama has already nominate two women to the court. This time, he needed to put up someone that everyone could see was exactly what the white male republicans in the senate wanted...and if they couldn't confirm Garland..then who could they confirm??? No one.
4
Why should he appoint an unqualified affirmative action candidate, a token WASP, instead of the best candidate?
Mc Connell's clear message isn't that " I won't allow a hearing because it's the President's last year in office". Rather "I won't allow this because the President is a Democrat, and since it's an election year, I'm doing this because I calculate I can."
22
The Senate Republicans better grab a moderate while they can, because if either Clinton or (God forbid) Trump wins in November, all bets are off.
But because the robot repubs are bound to do whatever is the opposite of what the president wants, they likely won't do anything but keep their doors closed. Come November and they'll be sorry. This is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But because the robot repubs are bound to do whatever is the opposite of what the president wants, they likely won't do anything but keep their doors closed. Come November and they'll be sorry. This is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
25
I have news for Senato McConell. He and all the other elected representatives in Congress are the people. Let them get on with the work of the people as outlined in our constitution.
5
The Republicans do not have the right to rewrite the Constitution unilaterally. They asked for the job that they now hold, and are refusing to carry out its responsibilities. Terrifyingly, they want a government of men-- not laws.
18
You've got to hand it to republicans: they just keep putting themselves into situations they can escape with only the most painful of extrications. To name just a few: John McCain choosing Sarah Palin for his running mate, repeatedly shutting down the government, letting the whims of the lunatic tea party house minority define the republican agenda, letting Donald Trump... Donald Trump! run away with the presidential nomination, and now blocking the president's Supreme Court nomination. Have fun spending the next year talking out of both sides of your mouths about this: 'I carry a copy of the constitution in my pocket wherever I go the part about the senate considering court nominations notwithstanding. Looking more self serving and self aggrandizing then ever, this latest example of republican buffoonery is going to end badly for them no matter what happens at this point. They will either have to eat crow and consider Garland's nomination or will have to watch Hillary Clinton's younger and more liberal nominee end up on the court.
19
Bork is an excuse. The calendar is an excuse. False equivalence is an excuse. The true reason to block any nominee was to make the presidential election about something more than Donald J. Trump. Senate Republicans needed to give their base a reason to vote.
When The Good Senator Mitch McConnell says he wants to take the politics out of something, we should all laugh in his face.
When The Good Senator Mitch McConnell says he wants to take the politics out of something, we should all laugh in his face.
26
It is time to talk about the constitution and its original intent. It is liberals who have allowed the right wing to totally subvert what really went on during the writing of the constitution and what its meaning was back in the 18th century.
There was a dictionary of record in the late 18th century and that was the dictionary used by the framers to write the constitutition and the Bill of Rights.
We don't need Scalias, Borks and Cruzs to tell us what the 2nd Amendment means. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary is available on line and Militia means the armed forces of a nation under an authorized government and Arms are the weapons of war. The falsehood of original intent is straight out of Orwell's 1984 and despite Americans believing that Orwell was a Laissez Faire Capitalist writing about socialism Orwell was a Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist writing about the fascism taking hold in England and the USA.
Bork, Scalia and Cruz are authorized agents of Big Brother Freedom is Slavery.
There was a dictionary of record in the late 18th century and that was the dictionary used by the framers to write the constitutition and the Bill of Rights.
We don't need Scalias, Borks and Cruzs to tell us what the 2nd Amendment means. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary is available on line and Militia means the armed forces of a nation under an authorized government and Arms are the weapons of war. The falsehood of original intent is straight out of Orwell's 1984 and despite Americans believing that Orwell was a Laissez Faire Capitalist writing about socialism Orwell was a Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist writing about the fascism taking hold in England and the USA.
Bork, Scalia and Cruz are authorized agents of Big Brother Freedom is Slavery.
15
"Clearly, Judge Bork regarded Roe v. Wade as illegitimate." Most judges that have given the subject serious thought share this view. RBG shares this view. It is perhaps the worst example of the judiciary overreaching its constitutional bounds in American history. I have no allegiance to either side of the abortion debate; each has some decent points. I do, however, have strong feelings about judicial restraint and leaving the most difficult issues of our time to the democratic process unless clearly addressed in the text of the Constitution.
3
OIC. And do you feel the same about the Court's predecessor decision on contraception? As is very clear that decision served as the granddaddy of the abortion decision. I've never been able to make any sense of a philosophy - whether propounded by a graduate of Harvard or Yale Law or not - that says our federal system demands our citizens' core personal liberties must be left to a patchwork of whimisical local political determinations that apply to people inside some arbitrarily-drawn boundry. But if that is indeed so, then in my judgment the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it's written on.
3
With the country still raw from the Watergate Scandal, President Reagan chose to nominate Robert Bork, the key player in the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" by which, Nixon attempted to short circuit the investigation. Bork was unacceptable to both the Democrats and a good percentage of the rest of the country. Yet Reagan went ahead with the nomination in spite of Tip O'Neill's advice. Any comparison between that and the current situation is as absurd as the Republicans refusing to even consider an Obama nomination.
30
I honestly think we've had enough conversations on these issues and have clearly agreed to not only disagree but even be disagreeable. Clearly, nominee Garland brings his own view of Roe-Wade legitimacy, a view foistered and fostered largely by Justice Blackmun, whose knowledge of law was far superior to his knowledge of human biology.
At the base of all of it we forget this Court is the Judicial branch of government, neither legislative nor executive as it creeps closer and closer to progressively turning our Consititution into Swiss cheese.
At the base of all of it we forget this Court is the Judicial branch of government, neither legislative nor executive as it creeps closer and closer to progressively turning our Consititution into Swiss cheese.
3
If the Republicans held hearings and resorted to the filibuster, their strategy would be beyond challenge. The same would be true if they simply voted down Obama's nominees. The decision not to hold hearings is far more controversial and is subject to legal challenge. McConell's use of the most drastic tactic has not been fully explained. But, if he is confident of prevailing in a lawsuit, he may be able to establish that the anticipated Republican majority in the Senate can continue to block any Supreme Court appointment for the next 4 years.. Keeping a Democrat off the Court for tha long would be an unprecedented power grab and would assure that the Democratic legal agenda would be blocked for years. I think this is McConnell's true purpose.
12
I have no respect for any elected or appointed official in DC, republican or democrat, but as McConnell said he wants to avoid politicizing this appointment just as Biden said when he was chairman of the judicial committee during a republican administration. So he's only doing what a democrat would do with the shoe one the other foot. Why is it people have no sense of fairness or the intelligence level to see this.
Secondly this writer is using the same politicized logic to point out the Bork debacle. That confirmation process was the definition of politicization of a nominee. Ted Kennedy made it his sole purpose in life to destroy the man. The reason being Bork didn't agree with the liberal views on abortion. Simple as that. Is that really a reason to destroy a person or assassinate their character and personal integrity?
Democrats have no tolerance for differing views and wish to punish anyone who does not agree their positions. They can do so because the liberal press (e.g. this paper) make it their goal to further those liberal views only. Just look at the Times picks below to see that this is true. They won't select a dissenting view for love or money.
There once was a time when the press was legitimate evaluator of the facts. Now they are merely a mouthpiece for liberals and the more liberal the better.
Secondly this writer is using the same politicized logic to point out the Bork debacle. That confirmation process was the definition of politicization of a nominee. Ted Kennedy made it his sole purpose in life to destroy the man. The reason being Bork didn't agree with the liberal views on abortion. Simple as that. Is that really a reason to destroy a person or assassinate their character and personal integrity?
Democrats have no tolerance for differing views and wish to punish anyone who does not agree their positions. They can do so because the liberal press (e.g. this paper) make it their goal to further those liberal views only. Just look at the Times picks below to see that this is true. They won't select a dissenting view for love or money.
There once was a time when the press was legitimate evaluator of the facts. Now they are merely a mouthpiece for liberals and the more liberal the better.
2
You have the situation all wrong here. To begin with the current Nominee is revered also by the Republicans. The Republicans are flat out refusing to even meet with him, give him a hearing or vote ALL of which DID happen with Bork because the Dems were doing their JOB and gave the man his due process. MANY Republicans also voted against Bork due to his views of many issues not just Roe v Wade. He was corrupt, could be bought, and not an honest judge - UNLIKE Garland who is honest, proven, non-corrupt and much liked by Republicans as well. Republicans are refusing to do their jobs and that is not ok and is in no way anything like the Bork situation. They flat out said it did not matter WHO the nominee was, they would still not even meet with him. That is not ok.
21
From the perspective of the Senate's obligation to "advise and consent", there is no comparison between the nominations of Robert Bork and Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Merrick Garland is a widely respected mainstream jurist. Robert Bork was an extremist whose radical views about the Constitution made him unfit for the Supreme Court. He repeated expressed an intention to overrule cases that had for decades consistently recognized fundamental personal freedoms in the Constitution, including the right of married couples to use contraceptives, a right of a person not to be sterilized against their will, and a right to marry, establish a home and bear children. He also proposed to reduce drastically the scope of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, claiming first that it did not address matters beyond racial equality (so that women and other disenfranchised groups would have no constitutional claim to equal protection), and even when it came to racial equality he criticized many leading constitutional cases in which blacks had won judicial redress for racial discrimination. Retaliating for the Democratic-controlled Senate's well-reasoned and proper rejection of Bork's nomination is no basis for rejecting Merrick's, which would be out of pure Republican petulance.
180
Well, if that was Bork's view on equal protection, I guess that means he would have voted with the Democrats on Bush v. Gore, right?
Somehow, I think he would have found a "loophole" in his views. Or, maybe I mean, he would have "clarified" them.
Somehow, I think he would have found a "loophole" in his views. Or, maybe I mean, he would have "clarified" them.
1
I believe that Sen. McConnell and his associates in the Senate will regret their act of disrespect. Merrick Garland is a middle-of-the-road candidate, and as such, coming from a liberal President, he's as good as the Republicans are likely to get in the foreseeable future.
If the position is still open next January 20, either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will nominate their own candidate, possibly a more liberal one. And the Senate, which will have flipped to a Democratic majority, will confirm.
If the position is still open next January 20, either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will nominate their own candidate, possibly a more liberal one. And the Senate, which will have flipped to a Democratic majority, will confirm.
13
I wonder whether the Senate Majority Leader would act the same way if the President was white. The more I see of obstructionist ploys being hurled at this President, the more I think this is all racist!
11
Perhaps the "McConnell Principle" is based in the idea that Obama's authority in office only extends for 3/5 of his term. Special case.
14
Perhaps some or at least by some, but they did the same to Clinton and will to the next Dem who gets in there. I really think it doesn't matter since their main beef is that their guy didn't win so they will do their best to block anything and everything they can then blame it on Obama that Obama didn't get it done. Same as they did with Clinton. I think it's just now there's social media and internet that makes the peanut gallery so much more vocal and forwarding around the false soundbites people end up believing. I just read a list of 340 things Obama DID accomplish, a lot in the first two years before the repub congress took over and the list is very impressive. He was a MUCH better president than he gets credit for. Had the repubs stopped their petty nonsense and everyone did their jobs, even more great things could have been done. As it was, we wasted our time and money in many ways as they just blocked whatever came through no matter what it was then blamed Obama for not getting it done. So sad.
7
I remember vividly when the key decision came for me. I wathed the hearings closely, and I don't remember which Senator asked the question, but I remember the question "Why do you want to be on the Supreme Court?" And I remember the core of the answer from Judge Bork: "It is an intellectual feast...." or words to that effect, and I remember my instant reaction: This is not a game of super-chess for your enjoyment, sir; the decisions you make affect the lives of millions and millions more to come.
The flippancy. arrogance, and selfishness of that answer should be replayed again and again. If Robert Bork was borked, it was primarily by himself.
The flippancy. arrogance, and selfishness of that answer should be replayed again and again. If Robert Bork was borked, it was primarily by himself.
26
President Obama has done what President Trump or Cruz (even Kasich) would never do, appoint a moderate. Judge Garland even looks like a Republican, he's old, white and male.
By refusing to even hold hearings Republicans are making clear they prefer to wait for President Trump to make the choice for the Supreme Court.
By refusing to even hold hearings Republicans are making clear they prefer to wait for President Trump to make the choice for the Supreme Court.
7
Think of the absurdity of the Republican party as it is now constituted:
The Republicans are about to foist the least qualified presidential candidate imaginable upon the electorate while simultaneously preventing arguably the most qualified jurist in a generation from attaining the Supreme Court.
Republican equals mediocrity.
The Republicans are about to foist the least qualified presidential candidate imaginable upon the electorate while simultaneously preventing arguably the most qualified jurist in a generation from attaining the Supreme Court.
Republican equals mediocrity.
36
The Senate did the right thing n 1987 when it rejected Bork after full consideration of his ill-advised nomination.
If there is one thing we want to see in a Supreme Court justice, it's good judgment.
Bork showed very poor judgment in the Saturday Night Massacre. He should have done what Richardson and Ruckelshaus did -- resign rather than carry out Nixon's illegal order.
The Saturday Night Massacre was one of the sorriest episodes of the long, sordid Watergate ordeal, bringing us to the brink of a constitutional crisis.
If Bork decided to fall on his sword for Nixon the crook, he should have understood that it was political suicide. Instead, he seemed to think he could get up, brush himself off and claim his entitlement (Bork acknowledged in a memoir that Nixon had promised him a nomination to the Court).
I don't think the Senate rejected Bork just because of his extremist ideology (it confirmed Scalia, after all). The misgivings may have stemmed from Bork's unapologetic defense of his role in seeking to subvert an independent investigation of Watergate. Simply stated, it was foolish of Reagan to nominate someone with such unacceptable baggage. Maybe Reagan "forgot" Watergate, but many others had not.
If there is one thing we want to see in a Supreme Court justice, it's good judgment.
Bork showed very poor judgment in the Saturday Night Massacre. He should have done what Richardson and Ruckelshaus did -- resign rather than carry out Nixon's illegal order.
The Saturday Night Massacre was one of the sorriest episodes of the long, sordid Watergate ordeal, bringing us to the brink of a constitutional crisis.
If Bork decided to fall on his sword for Nixon the crook, he should have understood that it was political suicide. Instead, he seemed to think he could get up, brush himself off and claim his entitlement (Bork acknowledged in a memoir that Nixon had promised him a nomination to the Court).
I don't think the Senate rejected Bork just because of his extremist ideology (it confirmed Scalia, after all). The misgivings may have stemmed from Bork's unapologetic defense of his role in seeking to subvert an independent investigation of Watergate. Simply stated, it was foolish of Reagan to nominate someone with such unacceptable baggage. Maybe Reagan "forgot" Watergate, but many others had not.
24
Bork, according to his his posthumously published memoirs, was promised a SCOTUS nomination by Nixon (and eventually submitted by Regan) in exchange for conducting the "Saturday Night Massacre" involving the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal. They both refused Nixon's orders to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
I was around at the time, closely following the news, and the newly-minted terms 'borked' and 'borks' which appeared had nothing to do with being denied a seat on the Court, as that was to come much later. 'Borking' meant that you had been hypnotized into doing something politically shady on behalf of a powerful person - Q:"How could all of the witnesses lie like that in front of a judge?" A:"Oh, they're borks, they've all been borked by the DA."
I was around at the time, closely following the news, and the newly-minted terms 'borked' and 'borks' which appeared had nothing to do with being denied a seat on the Court, as that was to come much later. 'Borking' meant that you had been hypnotized into doing something politically shady on behalf of a powerful person - Q:"How could all of the witnesses lie like that in front of a judge?" A:"Oh, they're borks, they've all been borked by the DA."
14
OK, let's raise our periscope and peek into the near future:
1) The GOP have their way and stonewall Garland's nomination until Obama's term expires.
2) The Democrats win the Oval Office, and there are still only 8 members of the Court.
3) The new (Democratic) president nominates former president Obama to fill the Scalia vacancy.
4) The GOP gets what it wants, which is to let the next president decide.
5) The Supreme Court gets what it needs, which is a 9th justice, an up-and-comer named Obama.
1) The GOP have their way and stonewall Garland's nomination until Obama's term expires.
2) The Democrats win the Oval Office, and there are still only 8 members of the Court.
3) The new (Democratic) president nominates former president Obama to fill the Scalia vacancy.
4) The GOP gets what it wants, which is to let the next president decide.
5) The Supreme Court gets what it needs, which is a 9th justice, an up-and-comer named Obama.
11
They'd just find a new even flimsier excuse to block any Clinton nominee. We have an "impaired court" of 8 justices until the people get mad enough to send the senate a message at the ballot box. Hopefully sooner than later.
11
Greenhouse has always been informative, and she is on Bork. I do recall Bork to be a rather slimy character, and a political actor or operative for Nixon. In many respects as Clarence Thomas at the EEOC under Bush 1 was much the same. Also, Roberts and Scalia did much the same, acted as political operative within the government. Yes, they were groomed for the Supreme Court, such individuals make lousy Justices and are highly partisan. Garland has been about service to the nation.
12
The question that hovers over this whole episode of Supreme Court hostage taking, with a background of the seemingly inevitable Trump nomination, is how long can the Republican party's strategy of obstructionism and distortions maintain their control of the House, Senate and Supreme Court? Will the voters of this country ever decide that our country must move forward, even if we do not all agree on every piece of legislation or Supreme Court decision, or Presidential executive action?
A presidential election tends to get voters attention more than off-year elections, especially when there is no incumbent. It is our duty as citizens to break through the social media cacophony to understand issues, and put innuendo on the back burner. Voting decisions should be based upon simple questions, but difficult answers. What do elected officials say, what do they do, and how do we hold them accountable? Elections are not athletic competitions, and it is not important that our team win, if they are not going to allow our country to move forward. United we stand; not in total agreement but in purpose. The responsibility lies with the citizen voter. Obstructionism can only be removed by punishment at the ballot box. 2016 is our opportunity to get the country moving with open and honest debate, and no more reliance upon obstruction, just because my side or your side didn't win.
A presidential election tends to get voters attention more than off-year elections, especially when there is no incumbent. It is our duty as citizens to break through the social media cacophony to understand issues, and put innuendo on the back burner. Voting decisions should be based upon simple questions, but difficult answers. What do elected officials say, what do they do, and how do we hold them accountable? Elections are not athletic competitions, and it is not important that our team win, if they are not going to allow our country to move forward. United we stand; not in total agreement but in purpose. The responsibility lies with the citizen voter. Obstructionism can only be removed by punishment at the ballot box. 2016 is our opportunity to get the country moving with open and honest debate, and no more reliance upon obstruction, just because my side or your side didn't win.
9
Bork had his hearing, He was ultimately denied confirmation on an up-or-down vote because a majority of Senators found his views to be far outside the judicial mainstream.
So far, Senate Republicans won't even give Garland what was afforded Bork.
There is no comparison whatsoever.
So far, Senate Republicans won't even give Garland what was afforded Bork.
There is no comparison whatsoever.
19
People might ask, why do we keep fighting the same battles? Yet this one, as Ms. Greenhouse, is not the same. The instant "no" 5 minutes after Scalia's death was discovered, has more to do with partisanship than principle, as was the case with Bork.
At issue today is how McConnell views President Obama, not how he views Garland. Even if the nominee were Solomon, it would have been rejected. For the simple reason the GOP considers the President as a 3/5ths ( if that) president, just as slaves were 3/5ths of a person when the constitution was written.
This lame duck nonsense is a dodge. The lame-duck period is 12 weeks at best, starting when an election has been decided, not during primaries. Also what "McConnell's calls "the Biden principle" is an idea rejected roundly by the GOP who never followed the floated concept during, say, Reagan or Bush's last year in office. So much for a principle.
I hope this resistance blows up in their faces. I hope every GOP senator up for reelection gets soundly defeated. Such flagrant refusal to do their jobs and thumb their noses at Mr. Obama could, and should, produce such a result.
Elections have consequences. Especially when a sitting President has won not once but twice and has not finished his FOUR year term.
At issue today is how McConnell views President Obama, not how he views Garland. Even if the nominee were Solomon, it would have been rejected. For the simple reason the GOP considers the President as a 3/5ths ( if that) president, just as slaves were 3/5ths of a person when the constitution was written.
This lame duck nonsense is a dodge. The lame-duck period is 12 weeks at best, starting when an election has been decided, not during primaries. Also what "McConnell's calls "the Biden principle" is an idea rejected roundly by the GOP who never followed the floated concept during, say, Reagan or Bush's last year in office. So much for a principle.
I hope this resistance blows up in their faces. I hope every GOP senator up for reelection gets soundly defeated. Such flagrant refusal to do their jobs and thumb their noses at Mr. Obama could, and should, produce such a result.
Elections have consequences. Especially when a sitting President has won not once but twice and has not finished his FOUR year term.
32
I could not agree with Linda and this column more! Not even a possibility. Bork got his hearing. Bork got his vote. Garland deserves the same. Anything less is a violation of the constitution. Any senator who violates their oath of office and refuses to uphold the constitution should be removed from that office. They are traitors to the United States...as are all of their supporters.
26
What would Harry Reid do if the roles were reversed? I think we all know the answer to that one. The demands for a hearing are useless. It isn't going to happen. McConnell is already facing an unprecedented revolt for failing to exploit the majorities in the House and the Senate. If he gave up on an issue of this huge magnitude when he has the votes to win by doing nothing they would run him out of town. I don't think the caterwauls from the liberals are sincere, just theatrics since we know the ending to this story already.
1
If a GOP president had nominated a well respected moderate such as this choice, I don't doubt Reid would have allowed hearings, as would Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the judiciary committee. For one thing, the Democrats don't have an extremist base that would threaten dire consequences as do the Republicans.
Conservatives always make the mistake of judging everyone by their own low standards.
Conservatives always make the mistake of judging everyone by their own low standards.
28
Reid would Bork the nominee, i.e. hold a hearing and a vote.
13
Linda Greenhouse duly trots out the line we all expected. Sen. Obama's nominee is "one of the country's most respected and experienced federal judges."
Wasn't the same said of Robert Bork? And of Samuel Alito whose vote was filibustered by then Sen. Obama? (Bork was probably overqualified for the job).
How sly and disingenuous of Greenhouse. This battle has nothing to do with respect or experience. Those are virtues we might look for in a judge. But Merrick Garland has not been selected for judicial office.
President Obama has nominated Garland to a political appointment -- membership of the nation's super-legislature. The members of what we call the Supreme Court have seized the power to trump (oops) any laws made by Congress and to invent out of whole cloth constitutional "rights" that generations of eminent jurists somehow did not notice when they read the Constitution. They are the pinnacle of our legislative branch.
Over the past almost 50 years, Greenhouse has been one of the cheerleaders for politicizing the court, so she has lost the right to complain if President Obama's nominee gets snarled up in partisan politics.
Wasn't the same said of Robert Bork? And of Samuel Alito whose vote was filibustered by then Sen. Obama? (Bork was probably overqualified for the job).
How sly and disingenuous of Greenhouse. This battle has nothing to do with respect or experience. Those are virtues we might look for in a judge. But Merrick Garland has not been selected for judicial office.
President Obama has nominated Garland to a political appointment -- membership of the nation's super-legislature. The members of what we call the Supreme Court have seized the power to trump (oops) any laws made by Congress and to invent out of whole cloth constitutional "rights" that generations of eminent jurists somehow did not notice when they read the Constitution. They are the pinnacle of our legislative branch.
Over the past almost 50 years, Greenhouse has been one of the cheerleaders for politicizing the court, so she has lost the right to complain if President Obama's nominee gets snarled up in partisan politics.
7
"Bork was probably overqualified for the job"
What, specifically, do you mean Ian?
His involvement in Watergate?
His belief in the legality of segregation?
Or his support for the right of states to deny married couples contraception?
What, specifically, do you mean Ian?
His involvement in Watergate?
His belief in the legality of segregation?
Or his support for the right of states to deny married couples contraception?
18
The vote on cloture was 75-25 to bring Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court to a vote. The was no filibuster. Voting for one is vastly different than actually conducting one. Any one of the 25 Senators that voted for the filibuster, could have done it a la Jimmy Stewart. 25 Senators would have had no trouble droning on until the majority gave in, but they did not do so. Please do not distort history with sloppy language. I would much rather believe you are ignorant of this history than lying about it.
What Judge Alito did get was a hearing of several days length before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vote before the full Senate. Every Republican President's nominee to the Court has been given a hearing, even, as Ms. Greenhouse pointed out, the despised by Liberals everywhere Judge Bork.
Whatever motive you ascribe to the President, is your argument that Judge Garland is simply a tool of the left without integrity? Your argument is reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson's feud with John Marshall over Marbury v. Madison. Do you really believe the Court has no business opposing the Congress or the President? And if it does, under what circumstances?
If the Congress does indeed believe the Court has too much power, it does have the remedy of amending the Constitution, but if such an amendment has made it to the House floor, it has done so with a whisper.
What Judge Alito did get was a hearing of several days length before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vote before the full Senate. Every Republican President's nominee to the Court has been given a hearing, even, as Ms. Greenhouse pointed out, the despised by Liberals everywhere Judge Bork.
Whatever motive you ascribe to the President, is your argument that Judge Garland is simply a tool of the left without integrity? Your argument is reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson's feud with John Marshall over Marbury v. Madison. Do you really believe the Court has no business opposing the Congress or the President? And if it does, under what circumstances?
If the Congress does indeed believe the Court has too much power, it does have the remedy of amending the Constitution, but if such an amendment has made it to the House floor, it has done so with a whisper.
4
Stephen:
I mean that Bork was one of the country's most brilliant jurists.
In the run up to the Senate vote, the New York Times editorialized against Robert Bork, not because he wasn't qualified or lacked integrity, but because he didn't share their ideology.
The Times editors said that all Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably political.
I mean that Bork was one of the country's most brilliant jurists.
In the run up to the Senate vote, the New York Times editorialized against Robert Bork, not because he wasn't qualified or lacked integrity, but because he didn't share their ideology.
The Times editors said that all Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably political.
This isn't Borking as it were because this will not be defamation of a person's character. There has to be a new term for refusing to even meet the nominee of a lame duck Predident. Perhaps "dis" is appropriate . It is a shame that a fine nominee will be used as a political pawn by this Predident. He should have spared any potential nominee this scenario . Obama had zero political capital and he only has himself to blame. His legacy becomes more tarnished with each passing day.
4
Obama did what the Constitution requires him to do. That you find it a "shame" that he followed the Constitution suggests that you value partisan politics more than the Constitution. That, if true, is the real shame. It also points out how correct George Washington was in his farewell address when discussing the very real possibility that political parties would cause the downfall of the US.
2
I see the Supremes as the umpires in the political game. Should be impartial. It is not that way but this nominee is a step in that direction.
Analogies to Bork are absurd. Bork was an extreme ideologue, a spit in the face of moderation by President Reagan. That is why Bork was rejected at each stage. Of course the assault against Bork was vicious although maybe deserved.
On the other hand citing Democrats' blocking in the past is totally fair. The Dems were wrong then and the Repubs are wrong now.
Analogies to Bork are absurd. Bork was an extreme ideologue, a spit in the face of moderation by President Reagan. That is why Bork was rejected at each stage. Of course the assault against Bork was vicious although maybe deserved.
On the other hand citing Democrats' blocking in the past is totally fair. The Dems were wrong then and the Repubs are wrong now.
3
Here's a solution. Whoever thinks that an office-holder like President Obama should not make important decisions in the last year of his or her term could just recuse themselves.
Since Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Grassley is up for reelection this year and is also on record as one of these novel thinkers, he should recuse himself from deciding whether or not the Judiciary committee holds hearings on Merrick's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Ranking Judiciary Committee member Patrick Leahy is also up for re-election this year. Like President Obama, however, Leahy has read the Constitution and is aware that Presidents serve full four-year terms, and Senators six years. In Grassley's absence, Leahy could then convene the hearings, lead the committee through a vote, and send the results to the floor of the Senate.
There, the 24 Republican Senators whose seats are up this year could abstain (this is too important a decision for them!). All the Democrats (they know about the six-year terms) and whichever of the remaining Republicans come to their senses could then participate in an up-or-down vote on Merrick's appointment.
Problem solved.
Since Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Grassley is up for reelection this year and is also on record as one of these novel thinkers, he should recuse himself from deciding whether or not the Judiciary committee holds hearings on Merrick's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Ranking Judiciary Committee member Patrick Leahy is also up for re-election this year. Like President Obama, however, Leahy has read the Constitution and is aware that Presidents serve full four-year terms, and Senators six years. In Grassley's absence, Leahy could then convene the hearings, lead the committee through a vote, and send the results to the floor of the Senate.
There, the 24 Republican Senators whose seats are up this year could abstain (this is too important a decision for them!). All the Democrats (they know about the six-year terms) and whichever of the remaining Republicans come to their senses could then participate in an up-or-down vote on Merrick's appointment.
Problem solved.
18
Republicans believe Obama should only get 3/5th of a term. This is what they mean by original intent of the constitution.
2
This is nothing like the Bork nomination. Bork was rejected on principal, the Republicans in congress have no principles.
21
I remember the Bork hearings. I found his views on the notion of privacy to be rather alarming: basically, that individuals have no real right to privacy because the Constitution & the Bill of Rights do not specifically contain the words 'right to privacy'. Many specific rights are guaranteed, as is as the guarantee that non-enumerated rights are retained by the people.
To use the 'walks like a duck' analogy, we have something in the Constitution that walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks, paddles around in the water, etc. etc. Bork seemed to believe that despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to this duck (the right to privacy), the absence of the word 'duck' means that there is no duck.
THAT is why Bork was not confirmed. That and maybe being Richard Nixon's political executioner.
To use the 'walks like a duck' analogy, we have something in the Constitution that walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks, paddles around in the water, etc. etc. Bork seemed to believe that despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to this duck (the right to privacy), the absence of the word 'duck' means that there is no duck.
THAT is why Bork was not confirmed. That and maybe being Richard Nixon's political executioner.
23
Ahhh -- the revisionist history pen of Linda Greenhouse strikes again. No, Linda, there was not just a "conversation" about Judge Bork -- a Judge who had been unanimously approved by the Senate for his Circuit Court seat and was viewed as eminently qualified by any previous standard. There was a calculated and organized opposition, which commenced with Senator Ted Kennedy's hyperbolic floor speech almost immediately after the nomination was announced combined with TV ads to assassinate his reputation. The Reagan administration was wholly unprepared for this, in large part because it was wholly unprecedented. The mainstream press became part of the spin cycle, even (ridiculously and highly invasively) publishing Judge Bork's (innocuous) movie video rentals. I am of the mind that President Obama was perfectly entitled to nominate a justice as liberal as Justice Scalia was conservative and that the Senate should hold hearings in the normal time frame. But please don't insult those who remember the history of the politicization of the Supreme Court by attempting to whitewash the "consideration" of the Robert Bork nomination as a mere "conversation." Bring it on indeed.
4
No doubt it was a circus with plenty of political fireworks and all, but Bork was voted down under an orderly and agreed-upon advise & consent process. And in the end he was found wanting by a number of Democrats and 6 Republicans. Completely legit as these things go. Comparisons to the present situation just don't wash.
22
Which doesn't change the fact that this is the first time in American history that the Senate has refused to fulfill it's Constitutionally mandated role. Judge Bork went thru the process. Every other nominee for the Supreme Court has gone thru the process. No one is demanding that the Senate confirm the nominee, just that the Senate do it's job, hold hearings and vote.
2
Not not to be forgotten among Judge Bork's deficiencies was his very limited view on the reach of the First Amendment right to free speech. In an article in Indiana Law Review he posited that the right to free speech should only extend to political speech. He was of the opinion that it should not extend to other matters such as economics and the arts. That is perhaps one of the most radical constraints ever proposed on what virtually all Americans would regard as one of our most sacred rights.
265
Then at least he would have voted against Citizen's United.
2
He probably would have supported corporate speech, it was boobies he was against.
1
It shouldn't be a new Bork battle, because Garland is clearly not a Bork.
4
As a progressive, I don't care if Garland is considered or not. We don't need another Kennedy on the court.
1
Let's be honest: We have had a right leaning court for decades. How's that working out? Civil rights have been gutted. Obscenely rich and secretive billionaires get to decide law and millions still don't have healthcare, denied it to them by the very people who get government healthcare. Unions are being obliterated (working people, the very ones who were elevated and protected by unions are voting in GOP candidates who further erode the working man's rights). Climate change is not even being discussed by the GOP as SCOTUS blocks international agreements on climate control. How about letting Garland serve? He seems O'Connor in his philosophy and intends to decide law on its merit not its politics. Are the Republicans that afraid of truth that need to obstruct transparency and fairness at every turn? Lucky for them they have been successful in maintaining the ignorance of their base.
14
"Are the Republicans that afraid of truth that need to obstruct transparency and fairness at every turn?" YES!!!!! Finally, SOMEONE gets it!
12
how conveniently the pubs forget who Bork really was. Archibald Cox was the Watergate Special Prosecutor. He was getting uncomfortably close to Richard Nixon, so Nixon order the AG to fire Cox. He refused and resigned. The Deputy AG also refused Nixon's order, and he resigned. Bork was third in line -- the Solicitor General. He had no problem firing Cox. He also held extremist views of law and jurisprudence that no one else had in the Circuits. When Reagan chose Bork, it was a pointed stick in the Senate's eye. They turned him down, as they should have. But they gave him a hearing.
37
McConnell and most of the rest of the Republican senators want us to believe that they must hold off on a hearing and vote so the people will have a voice in the next Supreme Court justice? Seriously? Do they really think we're that stupid? Do they really think we don't know what they would be saying if Mitt Romney were president today? Does anyone think they would be promoting holding off the hearing and vote? Seriously!
19
Republicans say wait 'till after the election so he can be approved by the will of the people. Who's representing the will of the people now?
18
Certainly not Obama.
Obama represents the will of sane people. Hopefully we are still a majority.
2
Ms Greenhouse has written some great pieces for us over the years, and this is not one of them.
First, for anyone not familiar with the disgusting character and twisted mind of the dishonorable Robert Bork, she didn't lay out anything close to a solid case to document the exact, and frighteningly real problems that any real patriot would have had with putting that man into a lifetime appointment onto a bench which issues rulings for which no other body can overrule.
It simply is not enough to repeat Ted Kennedy's oft-quoted statement regarding: "Robert Bork's America . . ."
99% of all politicians constantly bombard the public with intellectually dishonest lies, and we should not be making judgements based on characterizations, but should make out analyses based on fact-based, and fact-rich rational arguments.
Sadly there is no space here for me to document Robert Bork's sick ideas, but the record is very rich, and fortunately it is black & white, rather than grey-area.
Regarding this nomination: IMHO this is one of Obama's worst decisions, and I am a huge Obama supporter.
1) Wisely, he chose somebody who already has a 'day job', so that the nominee will not be twisting-in-the-wind, while the Senate drags their deliberations out{probably to infinity}.
2) The person Mr. Obama SHOULD have chosen was: D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan for the simple reason that he was confirmed unanimously just 3 years ago on a 97-0 basis
Mr. Garland confirmed 20 years ago 76/23
First, for anyone not familiar with the disgusting character and twisted mind of the dishonorable Robert Bork, she didn't lay out anything close to a solid case to document the exact, and frighteningly real problems that any real patriot would have had with putting that man into a lifetime appointment onto a bench which issues rulings for which no other body can overrule.
It simply is not enough to repeat Ted Kennedy's oft-quoted statement regarding: "Robert Bork's America . . ."
99% of all politicians constantly bombard the public with intellectually dishonest lies, and we should not be making judgements based on characterizations, but should make out analyses based on fact-based, and fact-rich rational arguments.
Sadly there is no space here for me to document Robert Bork's sick ideas, but the record is very rich, and fortunately it is black & white, rather than grey-area.
Regarding this nomination: IMHO this is one of Obama's worst decisions, and I am a huge Obama supporter.
1) Wisely, he chose somebody who already has a 'day job', so that the nominee will not be twisting-in-the-wind, while the Senate drags their deliberations out{probably to infinity}.
2) The person Mr. Obama SHOULD have chosen was: D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan for the simple reason that he was confirmed unanimously just 3 years ago on a 97-0 basis
Mr. Garland confirmed 20 years ago 76/23
2
I believe that Judge Sri Srinivasan would be the first naturalized citizen appointed to the Court. Mightn't that be controversial in the present context?
1
I'm sorry that you were not able to properly understand this piece.
Bork got his vote. Just as this nominee should get his.
Bork got his vote. Just as this nominee should get his.
5
Maybe Obama is starting at the bottom of his list?
1
Are there any Republicans with a brain left? Ms. Greenhouse reminds people of what the Bork nomination process actually was ... as opposed to the Republican myth about it ... that's one thing.
But let's talk about something much more basic: yo, Senate Republicans? Do you have a brain bigger than la cucaracha?
The constitution says you are supposed to advise. You took an oath to do that. You could do exactly as happened to Bork, and fulfill your constitutional realities, and be done with it.
Of course it won't be so easy to dismiss Mr. Garland, because he's a good candidate. But you can do it, we know you can.
But here's the real issue: it's going to be Trump v. Clinton. You know it. Do you support Mr. Trump for president? Frankly, I doubt it.
Who do you think is going to win? Who do you want to have win? And if Hillary wins vs Trump, what do you think the composition of the Senate will be?
Or if Trump wins ... what then?
Mr. Garland is a good candidate for the supreme court. We are headed for major problems. You are headed for major problems. A wise man might very well take the insurance bet offered, rather than waiting to roll the dice. You may never get that dice roll ... the way things might go.
But let's talk about something much more basic: yo, Senate Republicans? Do you have a brain bigger than la cucaracha?
The constitution says you are supposed to advise. You took an oath to do that. You could do exactly as happened to Bork, and fulfill your constitutional realities, and be done with it.
Of course it won't be so easy to dismiss Mr. Garland, because he's a good candidate. But you can do it, we know you can.
But here's the real issue: it's going to be Trump v. Clinton. You know it. Do you support Mr. Trump for president? Frankly, I doubt it.
Who do you think is going to win? Who do you want to have win? And if Hillary wins vs Trump, what do you think the composition of the Senate will be?
Or if Trump wins ... what then?
Mr. Garland is a good candidate for the supreme court. We are headed for major problems. You are headed for major problems. A wise man might very well take the insurance bet offered, rather than waiting to roll the dice. You may never get that dice roll ... the way things might go.
9
"The constitution says you are supposed to advise." What about the "and Consent" part?
2
Duh ... vote no. The senate cannot avoid doing its job.
2
Maybe silence = consent.
Today, Donald Trump warned of riots if his bid to win a majority of the delegates fails by a few votes. On the day of Scalia's death, Mitch McConnell said that the Senate would not consider any Supreme Court nominee of the President. Both are examples of force majeure, of a total disregard for the rules of the game and the law of the land. The last time I checked, the US Constitution, that hallowed document that certain Republicans like to read out aloud, says that the President SHALL nominate the members of the Supreme Court. No argument about it.
22
Major kudos for a plain-speaking Canuck.
1
Tit for tat!
Re Obama to announce Supreme Court pick at 11 a.m. Eastern
"I've devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision," President Barack Obama wrote in an email sent to supporters this morning. "I've consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we’ve reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have(sic) a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously."
In his 15th century devotional classic, The Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis (1380–1471) famously wrote: Man proposes, but God disposes – Obama's position in the 21st century regarding any legislation proposed for his consideration by the Congress.
In a 21st century political classic, in announcing "no action" on an Obama nominee for Scotus until after the election, Sen. McClellan famously said to the reigning Potus: God proposes but man disposes.
A Potus like Obama?/ We ne'er before have seen one,/
and we can tell you here and now, /we hope ne'er again to see one/
(with apologies to Gelett Burgess).
The Purple Cow by Gelett Burgess
I never saw a Purple Cow,
I never hope to see one,
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I’d rather see than be one!
Re Obama to announce Supreme Court pick at 11 a.m. Eastern
"I've devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision," President Barack Obama wrote in an email sent to supporters this morning. "I've consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we’ve reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have(sic) a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously."
In his 15th century devotional classic, The Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis (1380–1471) famously wrote: Man proposes, but God disposes – Obama's position in the 21st century regarding any legislation proposed for his consideration by the Congress.
In a 21st century political classic, in announcing "no action" on an Obama nominee for Scotus until after the election, Sen. McClellan famously said to the reigning Potus: God proposes but man disposes.
A Potus like Obama?/ We ne'er before have seen one,/
and we can tell you here and now, /we hope ne'er again to see one/
(with apologies to Gelett Burgess).
The Purple Cow by Gelett Burgess
I never saw a Purple Cow,
I never hope to see one,
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I’d rather see than be one!
If the GOP is waiting for Trump to nominate some ultra right conservative to SCOTUS, then they deserve whatever happens next. There is a saying about not counting your eggs before they've hatched. Even if we find ourselves with a President Trump, he has proven to be way too unpredictable and despite his lack of experience plans to "deal" his way through DC like a boardroom at Trump Towers. He will not let the GOP lead him to what they want, he will force them to follow, just as he has as a candidate for POTUS. Notice how many Republicans who spent months trying to take him down, are now suddenly on team Trump.
Obama's nomination of Garland is a great compromise for both sides, but it's the attitude that any compromise with Democrats is a defeat that could very well blow up in the Republicans face. If everything has to be so adversarial, well then the GOP has found a great leader in Trump. But buyer beware.
Obama's nomination of Garland is a great compromise for both sides, but it's the attitude that any compromise with Democrats is a defeat that could very well blow up in the Republicans face. If everything has to be so adversarial, well then the GOP has found a great leader in Trump. But buyer beware.
7
It is incorrect to compare the fight over the Bork nomination to the fight over Obama's nomination of Garland.
When Watergate prosecutor Cox was zeroing in on Nixon's guilt,Nixon asked Atty. Gen. Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Deputy Atty. Gen. Ruckelshaus refused and was fired by Nixon. Number three man in the Justice department did agree to fire Cox.
By that act alone Bork demonstrated a lack of personal and judicial integrity and deserved to be rejected by the Senate.
Everyone agrees that Garland has been an excellent Chief Judge of the DC district court and would make a fine Supreme Court Justice and is an excellent human being. The GOP does not want a Supreme Court justice who is not an ultra conservative. They do not want Citizens United or
Heller / McDonald or the gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act or Hobby Lobby modified or overturned.
They are hoping a GOP president elected in 2016 would nominate a conservative who would sustain those unfortunate decisions.
Bork was rejected because he lacked integrity.
The GOP rejection of Garland has nothing to do with Garland.
It is just that the GOP wants an ultra conservative to replace Scalia.
When Watergate prosecutor Cox was zeroing in on Nixon's guilt,Nixon asked Atty. Gen. Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Deputy Atty. Gen. Ruckelshaus refused and was fired by Nixon. Number three man in the Justice department did agree to fire Cox.
By that act alone Bork demonstrated a lack of personal and judicial integrity and deserved to be rejected by the Senate.
Everyone agrees that Garland has been an excellent Chief Judge of the DC district court and would make a fine Supreme Court Justice and is an excellent human being. The GOP does not want a Supreme Court justice who is not an ultra conservative. They do not want Citizens United or
Heller / McDonald or the gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act or Hobby Lobby modified or overturned.
They are hoping a GOP president elected in 2016 would nominate a conservative who would sustain those unfortunate decisions.
Bork was rejected because he lacked integrity.
The GOP rejection of Garland has nothing to do with Garland.
It is just that the GOP wants an ultra conservative to replace Scalia.
13
It really is a falsehood to describe a judge bent on cheating the constitutional ban on faith-based legislation a "conservative".
4
Explain to me again, why Sen. McConnell should extend to Merrick B. Garland the courtesy that Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton refused to extend to Samuel A. Alito.
Sure stinks like a double standard.
Sure stinks like a double standard.
4
Did they filibuster Alito? No. Get your facts straight.
10
Do you mean the same Alito who sits on the Supreme Court currently?
8
You are confusing the issues: the Senators mentioned voted against Judge Alito at the confirmation vote in Senate. They did not deny him the nomination hearings, which is what McConnell is doing, and other Republican Senators, basically in dereliction of their duty as elected officials.
6
What's that expression?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
2
Some history, please. Didn't the Republicans prevent Lyndon Johnson from elevating Abe Fortas to Chief Justice, hence denying LBJ his appointment to what would've been Fortas' vacant seat? That appointment was delayed until Nixon took office. That seems to be the starting point, of you wish to know who delayed an appointment seeking to pass it on to a new presidential administration.
6
The Constitution does not require the Senate to vote on any candidate: it says explicitly that the President can nominate a Justice only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. And so, the Senate is well within its powers not to vote on any nominee. This is basic separation-of-powers stuff. The President is not above Congress. Further, what does it mean to say, in response, to "give the nominee a vote"? Is Greenhouse saying it doesn't matter that the vote will be "no"; all that matters to her is that there is a vote, even if it's futile? That doesn't make any sense.
5
R.P....here's a question for you: Can you read? The constitution says the President shall nominate a supreme court justice. It does not say that he needs the approval of congress to nominate anyone. Do you think the democrats in the Senate would have approved of Reagan nominating Bork if given that choice? The constitution further states, that with the advice and consent of the Senate, the President can appoint his candidate to the Supreme Court. President Obama did seek the advice of the Senate. Now he seeks their vote. All according to the constitution. If the Senate refuses to act on the President's nominee, they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution. If you had any integrity, you would see that.
13
rumpleSS: I didn't say that the President needed Congress's consent to nominate someone. The President can nominate anyone he wants. But no Justice can be appointed without Congress's consent. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring Congress to give its consent, so they are well within their rights not to do so.
1
It should be noted for folks who keep track of such things that the Republicans did to Lyndon Johnson what the Democrats did to Reagan and they did it BEFORE Bork. Abe Fortas was turned down by "thoughtful" Republicans just as Bork was later turned down by Democrats. The lesson here is very clear. Pick a candidate for the highest court in the land who is not identified strongly in one camp or another. It usually works nicely that way.
3
And don't forget FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s.
2
Many thanks to Linda Greenhouse for setting the terms of the discussion about President Obama's nominee (Judge Garland) and clarifying with actual facts (Yes, my GOP friends, facts exist.) the stark difference between this situation and the 1987 nomination process Senate Democrats permitted Robert Bork.
16
This is a real muddle.
Linda Greenhouse writes: "In other words, the message to Democrats is: You did it to one of ours, so now we’ll do it to one of yours. Really?"
NO. Look again: That is exactly what the GOP is NOT doing.
Sen. McConnell is trying to AVOID a bruising battle over the court that will tear the country apart in the middle of a contentious election year.
Linda Greenhouse writes: "In other words, the message to Democrats is: You did it to one of ours, so now we’ll do it to one of yours. Really?"
NO. Look again: That is exactly what the GOP is NOT doing.
Sen. McConnell is trying to AVOID a bruising battle over the court that will tear the country apart in the middle of a contentious election year.
2
Again, you entirely miss Linda's point. President Obama did not pick a left wing version of Bork as his candidate. He picked the most highly qualified moderate in the whole country. I challenge YOU to name anyone better. If even Judge Garland would be contentious to republican Senators who have praised him the past and, most importantly, recommended him to Obama for Supreme Court openings, then the Senators who refuse to follow the oath they swore to uphold the constitution should simply resign their offices effective immediately. Otherwise, they should be impeached.
Given the level of discourse that the republican candidates for president are engaged in, what could possibly be more contentious than that clown circus? Besides, the country is already torn apart...maybe what we need is Senators willing to do their jobs regardless of the political consequences. Of course, that would require courage...so I doubt we will be seeing any of that.
Given the level of discourse that the republican candidates for president are engaged in, what could possibly be more contentious than that clown circus? Besides, the country is already torn apart...maybe what we need is Senators willing to do their jobs regardless of the political consequences. Of course, that would require courage...so I doubt we will be seeing any of that.
17
Judge Garland is never going to be a Supreme Court Justice, not now or later, a fact that he is fully aware of.
I believe he accepted the nomination out of reasons of patriotism.
I believe he accepted the nomination out of reasons of patriotism.
4
Fine. Pull a Bork. That means you have to have a hearing.
The American public has been Borked before, but never this badly by such a Senate.
The American public has been Borked before, but never this badly by such a Senate.
4
Judge Garland is by any measure, a centrist and a moderate, and completely qualified to fill the position. If Republicans persist in refusing to consider him, how is it not obvious to all that they are the ones who are politicizing this process? What they are saying is in effect, "we won't approve of a qualified centrist, one who earned praise from us just a few years ago, because we insist on a partisan conservative candidate to tilt the court as far to the right as possible. And we're willing to stonewall like nothing in the past 240 years to accomplish that."
348
Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts will attest to Judge Garland's focus on calling balls and strikes.
2
.....at's about right!.........and also correct!
1
Still, we hope that even in these divisive times, most everyone can agree that in the Mitch McConnel/Paul Ryan DO NOTHING Congress, no one does nothing better than Senate Judiciary chairman Cuck Grassley.
18
What a joke. The Senate extended no courtesies to Robert Bork, but rather slandered and rejected one of the most brilliant jurists of our time. It is always good theatre and amusing when Senators try to argue with people much smarter than themselves. It only makes them look foolish.
7
It was unprecedented that Judge Bork's nomination was put to a full floor vote after it was voted down in the Judiciary Committee. An unprecedented courtesy.
10
A gross overstatement. I watched all of it back in the day and no one slandered Bork. His mistake was talking too much and while he held sincere views, those views did not match well with the public. Reagan nominated a more mainstream conservative in Anthony Kennedy. That proves Greenhouse's point. Garland is about as mainstream as you can get without tipping into indecisiveness.
10
To TKW. Perhaps you don't recall Nixons Saturday Night Massacre of which Bork was the instrument. No joke. Bork protected a crook that the special prosecutor, the AG and the deputy Attorney General had all refused to do.
From google:
In his posthumously published memoirs, Bork stated that Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court following Bork's role in the firings. Nixon was unable to carry out the promise after his resignation, but Ronald Reagan eventually nominated Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987.
From google:
In his posthumously published memoirs, Bork stated that Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court following Bork's role in the firings. Nixon was unable to carry out the promise after his resignation, but Ronald Reagan eventually nominated Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987.
12
If you are a Republican, here is how it is.
You lost a clear and dependable conservative with the death of Scalia, and you want his replacement to be a clear and dependable conservative, not a centrist, no matter how well qualified. This is easy to understand, and it is nothing against Garland that he does not meet this requirement. You could reject him on this basis and be done with it.
But Donald Trump may be your presidential candidate in the November election, and he may lose, and/or he may cost your party control of the senate. So if this occurs and you have already rejected Garland, the new democratic president could nominate another more liberal appointee and the new democrat controlled senate could confirm that appointee, tipping the balance of the court, which would be a disaster.
So best course of action is to proceed slowly with the confirmation hearings, decide nothing before the November election. If you win the white house and maintain control of the senate, you reject Garland, the new president nominates a clear conservative and the senate confirms the nominee. If you lose the white house and/or control of the senate you vote to confirm Garland with democrat support - they will not refuse to confirm him if they win the election, he is their nominee after all.
So the Republicans are not in a bad place. Obama has made a good move.
You lost a clear and dependable conservative with the death of Scalia, and you want his replacement to be a clear and dependable conservative, not a centrist, no matter how well qualified. This is easy to understand, and it is nothing against Garland that he does not meet this requirement. You could reject him on this basis and be done with it.
But Donald Trump may be your presidential candidate in the November election, and he may lose, and/or he may cost your party control of the senate. So if this occurs and you have already rejected Garland, the new democratic president could nominate another more liberal appointee and the new democrat controlled senate could confirm that appointee, tipping the balance of the court, which would be a disaster.
So best course of action is to proceed slowly with the confirmation hearings, decide nothing before the November election. If you win the white house and maintain control of the senate, you reject Garland, the new president nominates a clear conservative and the senate confirms the nominee. If you lose the white house and/or control of the senate you vote to confirm Garland with democrat support - they will not refuse to confirm him if they win the election, he is their nominee after all.
So the Republicans are not in a bad place. Obama has made a good move.
6
Sorry, but your timeline is pure fiction. The confirmation process is typically not longer than 100 days, and the clock is running. The next term of the Supreme Court begins in early October, so long before the general election Republicans will need to have confirmed Judge Garland. If Senate Republicans try to game the confirmation process in the way you suggest, Obama will simply withdraw Garland's nomination, as would be his right, and rather than confirm a moderate jurist, the Senate (now controlled by Democrats) can approve a younger, more liberal jurist nominated by President Clinton next year.
7
No discussion of the Bork nomination can be considered reasonably accurate if Bork's key role in the Watergate ""Saturday Night Massacre" is excluded.
What happened was the President Richard Nixon, who had been engaged in blatantly illegal behavior in office, by seeking to obstruct a criminal investigation (at a bare minimum, many other violations were also involved) upped the ante of obstruction by demanding that the Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox be fired.
Rather than be party to obstruction of justice, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and then Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both resigned rather than be party to such an act. Bork was third in line, and was willing to swing the hatchet for Nixon.
By any reasonable standard of ethics this disqualified him from sitting on the Supreme Court, since this position demands scrupulous observance of legality and judicial ethics.
His nomination was widely regarded as a reward by the right-wing for being a loyal political operative, a role he was clearly expected to fulfill on the high court.
It was courteous that the Judiciary Committee sent such an unprincipled man to the floor for a hearing and a vote.
What happened was the President Richard Nixon, who had been engaged in blatantly illegal behavior in office, by seeking to obstruct a criminal investigation (at a bare minimum, many other violations were also involved) upped the ante of obstruction by demanding that the Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox be fired.
Rather than be party to obstruction of justice, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and then Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both resigned rather than be party to such an act. Bork was third in line, and was willing to swing the hatchet for Nixon.
By any reasonable standard of ethics this disqualified him from sitting on the Supreme Court, since this position demands scrupulous observance of legality and judicial ethics.
His nomination was widely regarded as a reward by the right-wing for being a loyal political operative, a role he was clearly expected to fulfill on the high court.
It was courteous that the Judiciary Committee sent such an unprincipled man to the floor for a hearing and a vote.
18
Wasn't Bork just as qualified as Garland? So why the different treatment Linda?
4
You need to read the article. She advocates the same treatment for Garland that Bork was given. That is, meetings, hearings and a vote.
15
Ask McConnell why Judge Garland won't even get a hearing, much less a full floor vote after being rejected by the Judiciary Committee.
4
Republicans are refusing to meet with the nominee, refusing to hold hearings, and refusing to hold an up-or-down vote on the nominee's merits. Judge Bork was allowed to make his case before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which rejected his nomination, but nonetheless forwarded his nomination to the Senate, which voted to reject his nomination on the merits. The Senate is not a rubber stamp, and in rejecting Judge Bork, based on his constitutional views, the Senate fulfilled its constitutional duties. Here, the Senate Republicans are refusing to consider the nomination.
13
A not insignificant fact that the Times appears to be overlooking in its early coverage of this nomination:
If Judge Garland is confirmed, and some way can be found to increase the number of Justices on the Court to ten, the Court would be just six Justices short of a Minyan.
If Judge Garland is confirmed, and some way can be found to increase the number of Justices on the Court to ten, the Court would be just six Justices short of a Minyan.
1
Not if you're orthodox, which in this case means conservative as opposed to what conservative usually means in this context.
If I go any further I'll start confusing myself.
If I go any further I'll start confusing myself.
This is true, but the Justices are bound to be liberals, making it OK.
1
Great article. Thank you very much.
Bring it on GOP. I've already made my calls to Senators Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, and McConnell to voice my thoughts as a citizen. Have you? Too bad that McConnell, Hatch, and Cornyn are too cowardly to even answer their phones.
Bring it on GOP. I've already made my calls to Senators Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, and McConnell to voice my thoughts as a citizen. Have you? Too bad that McConnell, Hatch, and Cornyn are too cowardly to even answer their phones.
15
I commend Pres Obama on his timing. Even the dumbest Republicans should see clearly today that Sec Clinton will be the Dem nominee, that Trump will likely be the Rep nominee and she will likely beat him. She certainly would nominate someone more progressive than McConnell et al want.
8
I really hope that the coalition of the sane can beat the Donald.
7
Anyone who has read the Constitution should have seen some provisions are very clearly written with very exact language that doesn't leave any openings for interpretation such as a president must be 35 years of age
As others have noted, the Constitution requires the President to nominate Supreme Court Justices & the Constitution then implicitly requires the Senate to act upon that nomination. Never before have I heard a senator suggest that the Constitution can be overridden or amended by what Senator McConnell has raised as the so-called Biden "rule," which at most was a statement never ut into practice
While Republican senators are free to vote however they wish on the nomination, for the party that loudly claims fidelity to the Constitution to willfully fail to perform their sworn duty thereunder merits removal from office
Also, as the party incessantly injecting religion into politics perhaps the Republicans should "prayerfully" reconsider their position as Justice Scalia's death, giving the opening on the court, was not the work of mere mortals but God's Plan
As others have noted, the Constitution requires the President to nominate Supreme Court Justices & the Constitution then implicitly requires the Senate to act upon that nomination. Never before have I heard a senator suggest that the Constitution can be overridden or amended by what Senator McConnell has raised as the so-called Biden "rule," which at most was a statement never ut into practice
While Republican senators are free to vote however they wish on the nomination, for the party that loudly claims fidelity to the Constitution to willfully fail to perform their sworn duty thereunder merits removal from office
Also, as the party incessantly injecting religion into politics perhaps the Republicans should "prayerfully" reconsider their position as Justice Scalia's death, giving the opening on the court, was not the work of mere mortals but God's Plan
20
Is that the same Constitution that requires the President to act to enforce all of the laws of the United States, even immigration laws he does not like? Nowhere do I find any clause saying he can ignore a rule he disagrees with, yet that very action is being challenged in the Court now. It makes for an interesting situation, when one of the players gets to nominate the referee.
2
To mikecody
Yes the President is obligated to enforce ALL of the laws even those the President believes are ill-advised. But then so what? Sometimes Congress doesn't appropriate sufficient funds to enforce certain laws; this Congress doesn't like rich people or multi-national corps to be audited so Congress didn't fund the IRS in effect making tax paying voluntary if your taxes aren't taken out of your paycheck. This Congress puts my life in jeopardy but not funding for the repair of bridges & roads on which I travel. Clearly you are referring to immigration, once again let Congress fund the $100 Billion or more to deport some 12 Million & then perhaps you will be entitled to complain as to how Obama, who has deported more than anyone, has handled it
As to picking the referee, he is picking 1 of 9 & such a situation was foreseen & inevitable under the Constitution
Yes the President is obligated to enforce ALL of the laws even those the President believes are ill-advised. But then so what? Sometimes Congress doesn't appropriate sufficient funds to enforce certain laws; this Congress doesn't like rich people or multi-national corps to be audited so Congress didn't fund the IRS in effect making tax paying voluntary if your taxes aren't taken out of your paycheck. This Congress puts my life in jeopardy but not funding for the repair of bridges & roads on which I travel. Clearly you are referring to immigration, once again let Congress fund the $100 Billion or more to deport some 12 Million & then perhaps you will be entitled to complain as to how Obama, who has deported more than anyone, has handled it
As to picking the referee, he is picking 1 of 9 & such a situation was foreseen & inevitable under the Constitution
7
Obama didn't invent executive orders or the concept of prosecutorial discretion. Any thoughts on Reagan and Bush's and Nixon's lack of enforcement of environmental, civil rights, or labor regulations?
2
You are not going to find the powers reserved by the people in the US Constitution because it lists only the powers the people delegated to the federal government. The Bill of Rights merely seeks to clarify the extent and limitations of those powers.
I don't know about you, but I reject the claim that the US people ever delegated away autonomy over the internal processes of their own bodies to any layer of government.
I don't know about you, but I reject the claim that the US people ever delegated away autonomy over the internal processes of their own bodies to any layer of government.
12
No additional pressure needs to be applied to republican senators. They are in a weak position with regards to this matter. No matter what happens, they will end up confirming a supreme court justice who is less conservative than Scalia was. Nothing they choose will prevent that from happening. The only choice they have is this: they may choose a centrist now, or they may wait until January and confirm a truly liberal supreme court justice after the next democratic president has wiped the floor with whichever candidate republicans nominated. Let them struggle all they like. They are only struggling in quicksand, and they will only sink faster.
17
James Madison observed in the "Federalist Papers" that, if men were angels, they would require no government. The authors of the Constitution, certain that Americans had not yet earned their wings, designed a government to achieve two contradictory goals simultaneously. Mindful that elected officials might abuse their powers, the framers ensnared them in a system of checks and balances that would empower officeholders to limit each other's freedom of action. At the same time, bitter experience had taught Madison and his colleagues that weak governments encourage anarchy. So they endowed the new federal regime with substantial powers and structured the branches of government in such a way that only cooperation among them would enable the new system to function effectively.
Politics would govern the interaction of elected officials, but not to the point of destroying the comity on which the survival of any democratic system depends. The congressional leaders of the GOP, by refusing even to consider President Obama's budget proposals or his nominee to the SC, have violated the spirit if not the letter of the constitutional system the framers so painstakingly constructed. They have converted healthy political competition into a form of nihilistic obstruction that justifies even a shutdown of the government.
Conservatives claim to revere the Constitution. But these heirs of Reagan have scorned its dictates and harmed the system of government it created.
Politics would govern the interaction of elected officials, but not to the point of destroying the comity on which the survival of any democratic system depends. The congressional leaders of the GOP, by refusing even to consider President Obama's budget proposals or his nominee to the SC, have violated the spirit if not the letter of the constitutional system the framers so painstakingly constructed. They have converted healthy political competition into a form of nihilistic obstruction that justifies even a shutdown of the government.
Conservatives claim to revere the Constitution. But these heirs of Reagan have scorned its dictates and harmed the system of government it created.
515
Agree until the conclusion.
Ref this passage: "Obama nominee would inhabit the constitutional mainstream much more securely than either Judge Bork or Justice Scalia — whose “originalist” philosophy never gained more than a toehold at the court — ever did."
*As your commentary notes "the spirit if not the letter of the constitutional system the framers so painstakingly constructed."
*Perhaps being a non-native does not endow me the writer's omniscience or hind site as to what authors of the Constitution intended in its writing or their prescience of what was to come.
*My humble opinion is that they crafted a very good foundation on which to build: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary [which includes the Supreme Court and 9 Justices. They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/1.htm]
*The argument [left vs. right] appears to be one regarding interpretation or enactment of new laws/amendments. In the case of the former the laws of the land [other two branches] can be usurped by simple majority of justices whereas the latter defers to Executive and Legislative to promulgate said laws FOR the populace or mainstream.
*Stacking the court with those aligned with personal preference - someone supporting liberal policies as Democrats originally promised - is disconcerting.
2 wrongs ≠ 1 right.
Ref this passage: "Obama nominee would inhabit the constitutional mainstream much more securely than either Judge Bork or Justice Scalia — whose “originalist” philosophy never gained more than a toehold at the court — ever did."
*As your commentary notes "the spirit if not the letter of the constitutional system the framers so painstakingly constructed."
*Perhaps being a non-native does not endow me the writer's omniscience or hind site as to what authors of the Constitution intended in its writing or their prescience of what was to come.
*My humble opinion is that they crafted a very good foundation on which to build: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary [which includes the Supreme Court and 9 Justices. They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/1.htm]
*The argument [left vs. right] appears to be one regarding interpretation or enactment of new laws/amendments. In the case of the former the laws of the land [other two branches] can be usurped by simple majority of justices whereas the latter defers to Executive and Legislative to promulgate said laws FOR the populace or mainstream.
*Stacking the court with those aligned with personal preference - someone supporting liberal policies as Democrats originally promised - is disconcerting.
2 wrongs ≠ 1 right.
1
Ms Greenhouse
Isn't it true that between June 2001 and Jan 2003 Democrats blocked 32 appellate nominees by Bush including Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada (who they filibusterd 28 months) and Janice Rogers Brown?
Wasn't President Bush forced to withdraw John Roberts as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court because of Democratic obstruction?
Was Harriet Meiers vetted or was Bush forced to pull her nomination?
Isn't it true that prior to 2003 there was only 1 filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee and that was Abe Fortas in 1968? And wasn't that orchestrated by LBJ to avoid the embarrassment of Fortas' business dealings?
So why is it 25 Democratic Senators including OBAMA, CLINTON, Leahy, Schumer, Reid, Biden voted to filibuster Alito in 2005? So when Democrats do it it's a noble effort but Republicans do it and they're obstrutionists. Glad we cleared that up.
And explain Obama's hypocrisy. Votes to filibuster Alito but then whines about Congress not doing their job. Was he doing his job filibustering?
And why don't Democrats talk about the hypocrisy of Harry Reid. When McConnell threatened to use the nuclear option Reid pleaded with him not to saying the Senate rules had worked for over 200 years. But suddenly, as the new Majority leader, he showed his hypocrisy he invoked the nuclear option so only a simple majority would be needed which enabled him to vet and pass Obama's DC Court appointees
The ignorance of Democrats about their own judicial obstruction is amazing.
Isn't it true that between June 2001 and Jan 2003 Democrats blocked 32 appellate nominees by Bush including Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada (who they filibusterd 28 months) and Janice Rogers Brown?
Wasn't President Bush forced to withdraw John Roberts as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court because of Democratic obstruction?
Was Harriet Meiers vetted or was Bush forced to pull her nomination?
Isn't it true that prior to 2003 there was only 1 filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee and that was Abe Fortas in 1968? And wasn't that orchestrated by LBJ to avoid the embarrassment of Fortas' business dealings?
So why is it 25 Democratic Senators including OBAMA, CLINTON, Leahy, Schumer, Reid, Biden voted to filibuster Alito in 2005? So when Democrats do it it's a noble effort but Republicans do it and they're obstrutionists. Glad we cleared that up.
And explain Obama's hypocrisy. Votes to filibuster Alito but then whines about Congress not doing their job. Was he doing his job filibustering?
And why don't Democrats talk about the hypocrisy of Harry Reid. When McConnell threatened to use the nuclear option Reid pleaded with him not to saying the Senate rules had worked for over 200 years. But suddenly, as the new Majority leader, he showed his hypocrisy he invoked the nuclear option so only a simple majority would be needed which enabled him to vet and pass Obama's DC Court appointees
The ignorance of Democrats about their own judicial obstruction is amazing.
4
George W. Bush sure didn't have a sophisticated understanding of the skills required of fair judges.
5
Voting to filibuster, is quite different than not even giving the nominee a vote at all.
You can throw words like hypocrisy and phrases like glad we cleared that up around, but it doesn't change the fact that the congress of the last session, and the current one are some of the least productive ones we have ever seen.
They should at least have time to give Justice Garland an up or down vote, which all Senators would be able to attempt to filibuster, if that was their prerogative.
You can throw words like hypocrisy and phrases like glad we cleared that up around, but it doesn't change the fact that the congress of the last session, and the current one are some of the least productive ones we have ever seen.
They should at least have time to give Justice Garland an up or down vote, which all Senators would be able to attempt to filibuster, if that was their prerogative.
5
What a load of baloney. Alito was and is a far right justice. Merrick Garland is a moderate centrist. if Obama had picked a far left candidate, you might have some ground to stand on...as it is, you have nothing. The real difference between this republican senate and any past senates is their refusal to do their job as required by the constitution. They should be impeached and removed from office.
9
A major reason Democrats and some Republicans were uncomfortable with Robert Bork was because as Solicitor General and Acting Attorney General, he carried out President Nixon's order to fire Watergate Special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973. Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus refused to do so and resigned. They acted on principal and honor; Bork did not, and many Democrat Senators and some Republicans in 1987 had not forgotten that Bork did Nixon's dirty work.
12
"Bork Battle all over again? Be my guest."
This is yet another desperate attempt by the author to divert readers' attention away from a far more important issue that affects us all.
Namely, what will the candidates do to prevent yet more damage to our atmosphere by her destructive gases?
This is yet another desperate attempt by the author to divert readers' attention away from a far more important issue that affects us all.
Namely, what will the candidates do to prevent yet more damage to our atmosphere by her destructive gases?
2
Like him or not, Bork was hardly afforded any courtesy by the Senate. Indeed, Kennedy's tirade against him during the procedure is generally considered to be completely false and full of angry scare tactics. I suspect the author really does not want these courtesies extended to Garland. However, the Senate can take the advice of Vice President Biden and stall a vote if they so choose.
4
Ms. Greenhouse. You have amnesia. I will agree the senate rejection of Judge Bork may have been a good decision. I had reservations about Judge Bork myself. I was not disappointed with his rejection. I am however and still am appalled at the way it was done. Senator Kennedy was particularly appalling. Many spread outright lies about Judge Bork. Many others speculated all kinds of horrible scenarios - rarely based on fact. In some cases the conjectures contradicted previous rulings he had delivered. There was enough to factual points to question about Judge Bork without resorting to the slander and exaggeration that went into the treatment of Judge Bork. I would like to return to logical reasonable discussions. A battle over ideas? bring it on. Another Bork Battle? - please leaves the exaggeration and slander behind.
8
Ms. Greenhouse:
thank you for your timely and thorough quick-review of today's SCOTUS news,
especially in re-establishing the facts involved in relatively recent skirmishes between the White House and the Senate.
should Republican Senators continue to refuse to do their constitutional duties,
perhaps the voters will return the Senate to the Democrats this coming November.
of note that demands vigorous repetition:
in the Presidential election year of 1988, a Democrat controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy in less than 100-days...
Justice Kennedy having been nominated by President Reagan who was then serving in his last year in office.
there are 201 days until the 2016-17 Supreme Court term begins.
is it possible to sue and/or recall the members of the Senate who are preventing that body from properly functioning?
if the Senate fails to remain-in-session, should President Obama do a "recess-appointment"?
let us keep these many and necessary conversations going!
thank you for your timely and thorough quick-review of today's SCOTUS news,
especially in re-establishing the facts involved in relatively recent skirmishes between the White House and the Senate.
should Republican Senators continue to refuse to do their constitutional duties,
perhaps the voters will return the Senate to the Democrats this coming November.
of note that demands vigorous repetition:
in the Presidential election year of 1988, a Democrat controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy in less than 100-days...
Justice Kennedy having been nominated by President Reagan who was then serving in his last year in office.
there are 201 days until the 2016-17 Supreme Court term begins.
is it possible to sue and/or recall the members of the Senate who are preventing that body from properly functioning?
if the Senate fails to remain-in-session, should President Obama do a "recess-appointment"?
let us keep these many and necessary conversations going!
4
Robert Bork was the architect of his own destruction, through his public defense of the right of private businesses to discriminate on racial grounds. In 1963, when the civil rights bill was under consideration by Congress, he published an article in the New Republic attacking the public accommodations provisions. He wrote: “The principle of such legislation is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”
Unsurpassed ugliness? For many others, the idea that African-Americans traveling between cities might be in constant fear of being unable to find an establishment willing to let them use the bathroom was far uglier. The Senate was right to believe that a person with Bork’s stated values and priorities did not belong on the Supreme Court. The Democrats didn’t “Bork” him, he did it to himself.
Unsurpassed ugliness? For many others, the idea that African-Americans traveling between cities might be in constant fear of being unable to find an establishment willing to let them use the bathroom was far uglier. The Senate was right to believe that a person with Bork’s stated values and priorities did not belong on the Supreme Court. The Democrats didn’t “Bork” him, he did it to himself.
19
McConnell's recalcitrance is nothing more than another stake in the heart of the promise of American democracy. The Founders are weeping in their graves.
11
Sorry Linda, the GOP will be joining this war, at least not until next year. What is important is that Merrick will now need to excuse himself from all cases in the Circuit court, which is a good thing. As for Bork, well his nomination made all nominations political, which in fact they were always.
2
Why would he have to recuse himself? Is this another newly invented standard that applies only to democrats?
3
This is an excellent argument and an important corrective to Republican attempts to revise history.
It is true that Robert Bork's nomination was rejected in large part due to his views, not due to his qualifications per se. And it's true that consideration of a nominee's views can be a slippery slope - the president should have a lot of latitude in selecting federal judges.
But Bork's nomination was not rejected solely because of his opinions. Another important issue was Bork's compliance with Nixon's order to fire Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox - an order that both Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out, resigning instead. The prevailing view, then and still, is that Richardson and Ruckelshaus showed an integrity that Bork lacked.
And, as Linda Greenhouse eloquently says, to the extent that a nominee's views are relevant, the Senate should convene hearings to get those views, and the public should get to listen in. Then the Senate should vote, yes or no, and be held accountable according to the wishes of the voters.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
It is true that Robert Bork's nomination was rejected in large part due to his views, not due to his qualifications per se. And it's true that consideration of a nominee's views can be a slippery slope - the president should have a lot of latitude in selecting federal judges.
But Bork's nomination was not rejected solely because of his opinions. Another important issue was Bork's compliance with Nixon's order to fire Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox - an order that both Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out, resigning instead. The prevailing view, then and still, is that Richardson and Ruckelshaus showed an integrity that Bork lacked.
And, as Linda Greenhouse eloquently says, to the extent that a nominee's views are relevant, the Senate should convene hearings to get those views, and the public should get to listen in. Then the Senate should vote, yes or no, and be held accountable according to the wishes of the voters.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
425
Yes. You eloquently argue why Bork should not have been confirmed. If only the discussion at the time had been so well reasoned and explained. Instead the hoopla against Bork at the time sounded more like a Trump rally - light and substance and loud on conjecture and exaggeration and misrepresentation. There were many solid reasons not to confirm Bork, but you wouldn't know it by listening to Ted Kennedy or reading most news media.
1
Excellent memory. Bork's role in the Saturday Night Massacre is often forgotten.
3
The Senate Repubs are afraid to have hearings because they fear Garland will meet all qualifications and they would have to explain in detail why they still would vote against his nomination. Why? It's only because they'd be handing Obama a clear victory which is against GOP orthodoxy. Pure partisan politics...again.
1
If Trump is the GOP nominee, it's likely the next POTUS will be HRC. Go ahead Republicans and block Garland. You'll likely end up with a much younger and more liberal Justice.
10
You're assuming you will retake the Senate and your are also dismissing the public corruption scandal with the Foundation and the emails. Given the grant of immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the guy who set up her server it's probable they've seated a grand jury And that indicates they are narrowing their scope. Hillary has no business running
1
All of these accusations are on about the same level as Whitewater, a losing investment in land the Clintons made, hoping it would yield a profit sufficient to pay their daughter's college tuition.
4
Magic,
For, quite literally years, you were constantly telling us about the evil atrocities that Hilary had committed in Benghazi. You were sure that she lied, sure that the republicans would uncover her wrongdoing, and sure that she would thus be charged.
Yet even the republican committees running those witch hunts have admitted they found nothing. All of their supposed star witnesses turned out to be frauds. They captured the ringleader of the attacks and he admitted it was incited by the video. Every republican theory has been debunked repeatedly.
My point is, I guess:
1) Doesn't your little rant sound familiar?
2) And how'd that work out for you last time?
For, quite literally years, you were constantly telling us about the evil atrocities that Hilary had committed in Benghazi. You were sure that she lied, sure that the republicans would uncover her wrongdoing, and sure that she would thus be charged.
Yet even the republican committees running those witch hunts have admitted they found nothing. All of their supposed star witnesses turned out to be frauds. They captured the ringleader of the attacks and he admitted it was incited by the video. Every republican theory has been debunked repeatedly.
My point is, I guess:
1) Doesn't your little rant sound familiar?
2) And how'd that work out for you last time?
8
As we look back, some one decade from now on the complete ineptness and incompetency of the GOP led Senate and House, we can look at this date, at this time, at this moment - as the reason that the American people finally rose up during the November election and said "Enough!" Enough of the rhetoric, enough of the hatred, enough of the gamesmanship - and the Senate fell that November day with the GOP losing control for the next decade to come.
7
Ms. Greenhouse writes, "The president might even say: Remember Robert Bork? Treat my nominee in the same way."
So, the Republicans should allow hearing to go forward, during which they will coldly, heartlessly, shamelessly, and without contrition or conscience destroy the life and career of a highly respected Constitutional jurist?
What the Democrats did to Robert Bork is literally taught in college classrooms during discussions about character assassination and political (lack of) ethics. This is what Ms. Greenhouse thinks should be emulated now?
Sure, put the President's nominee in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then, tear him down, tear him apart, and mercilessly demean him and everything he's ever done or accomplished.
This article shows a shocking misunderstanding of history. The Times and its editors should be ashamed to have published it.
So, the Republicans should allow hearing to go forward, during which they will coldly, heartlessly, shamelessly, and without contrition or conscience destroy the life and career of a highly respected Constitutional jurist?
What the Democrats did to Robert Bork is literally taught in college classrooms during discussions about character assassination and political (lack of) ethics. This is what Ms. Greenhouse thinks should be emulated now?
Sure, put the President's nominee in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then, tear him down, tear him apart, and mercilessly demean him and everything he's ever done or accomplished.
This article shows a shocking misunderstanding of history. The Times and its editors should be ashamed to have published it.
3
This comment shows the author's ignorance.
11
@Virginia Reader: I am old enough that I remember vividly watching the Bork hearings on TV. When I went to college, there was a major discussion in my Constitutional Law class about these hearings and their implications for future Supreme Court confirmation hearings. So, "ignorance" is not a word I would throw around lightly or with requisite Internet snark.
Are you familiar with the verb "to bork" as relates to Supreme Court nominees? Where, exactly, do you think that comes from?
Stop reading through liberal-colored glasses and do a search of the Times' archive for articles about the hearings written at the time. Time and again you will find that throughout the hearings, the Times itself printed articles that demeaned the nominee and even lionized the Gregory Peck TV ads that sought to paint Bork as little better than a Grand Wizard of the Klan who wanted eat babies and kill the poor.
History doesn't change just because people want it to. History can be researched and the events verified. Any fair reading of this article and the historical record will conclude that the article is greatly flawed and highly revisionist.
Slight deeper analysis than yours, dear Virginia Reader, is appropriate to a discussion such as this.
Are you familiar with the verb "to bork" as relates to Supreme Court nominees? Where, exactly, do you think that comes from?
Stop reading through liberal-colored glasses and do a search of the Times' archive for articles about the hearings written at the time. Time and again you will find that throughout the hearings, the Times itself printed articles that demeaned the nominee and even lionized the Gregory Peck TV ads that sought to paint Bork as little better than a Grand Wizard of the Klan who wanted eat babies and kill the poor.
History doesn't change just because people want it to. History can be researched and the events verified. Any fair reading of this article and the historical record will conclude that the article is greatly flawed and highly revisionist.
Slight deeper analysis than yours, dear Virginia Reader, is appropriate to a discussion such as this.
1
You show remarkable restraint, Elfego. I applaud you...
1
They should be honored to have the priviledge to vote for such an excellent man.
What is all of the talk about "God Bless America" and "In God We Trust" when you not only refuse to recognize it when it actually happens, but jaw-droppingly insist on saying that it's something evil?
What is all of the talk about "God Bless America" and "In God We Trust" when you not only refuse to recognize it when it actually happens, but jaw-droppingly insist on saying that it's something evil?
4
The FOX News spin machine is already at full throttle. They were saying that nominating Garland was just a political ploy that will only backfire on the President. In other words, doing his job is a political ploy.
Then their legal expert stated that Garland is a true centrist, not at all like the liberals Obama has previously appointed, but he should not make the appointment because doing so is purely political. Really? The President gives them an opportunity to seat a centrist judge and Fox says that is being purely political because it was done to make the Republicans look bad. The Republicans are making themselves look bad by not doing their jobs. The hypocrisy and self-contradictory nature of their rhetoric is so severe that even the most ardent Rush Limbaugh follower could see through it.
Now we are beginning to understand the base of support that Donald Trump has. Not even The Donald would make statements as ludicrous as these. There come a point where shame no longer applies to their behavior. What the GOP is doing defies any categorization. This is so insane that it doesn't even qualify for an insanity excuse. The conservative public can see through this for what it is. That's why they vote for Trump. Mitch McConnell and company are handing America to Trump on a silver platter.
Then their legal expert stated that Garland is a true centrist, not at all like the liberals Obama has previously appointed, but he should not make the appointment because doing so is purely political. Really? The President gives them an opportunity to seat a centrist judge and Fox says that is being purely political because it was done to make the Republicans look bad. The Republicans are making themselves look bad by not doing their jobs. The hypocrisy and self-contradictory nature of their rhetoric is so severe that even the most ardent Rush Limbaugh follower could see through it.
Now we are beginning to understand the base of support that Donald Trump has. Not even The Donald would make statements as ludicrous as these. There come a point where shame no longer applies to their behavior. What the GOP is doing defies any categorization. This is so insane that it doesn't even qualify for an insanity excuse. The conservative public can see through this for what it is. That's why they vote for Trump. Mitch McConnell and company are handing America to Trump on a silver platter.
31
I don't think they even know when two things they believe contradict each other.
9
"Mitch McConnell and company are handing America to Trump on a silver platter."
My first bet is that McConnell and his band of slime are gambling they can grab the silver platter back from Trump at a brokered convention. And "If the conservative public can see through this for what it is", my second bet is that it won't matter in the least. Conservatives assume that "they're right about everything" - akin to being handed absolution from all sins without bothering with confession, claims to the ethical/moral high ground not withstanding...
My first bet is that McConnell and his band of slime are gambling they can grab the silver platter back from Trump at a brokered convention. And "If the conservative public can see through this for what it is", my second bet is that it won't matter in the least. Conservatives assume that "they're right about everything" - akin to being handed absolution from all sins without bothering with confession, claims to the ethical/moral high ground not withstanding...
4
Bork was about the nominee, not the process. He would not have been a good choice but Merrick Garland is a good choice, but because of what the Republicans said before they're going to block him? Sounds very logical to me (insert snarky tone).
8
The article makes it clear that the Senate and its committee are acting in an unconstitutional manner. In this case, the Constitution should give the Supreme Court the authority to require the nomination to go forward. The framers of the Constitution clearly expected reasonableness and goodwill. If the Senate can choose not to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court now, following that principle, they could continue ad infinitum until there is no longer a Supreme Court. There is no Constitutional logic to obstructing a central branch of government by another branch.
21
Harpo,
Correct me if I am wrong, but does the Constitution state how many Justices
must be on the Supreme Court ?
Couldn't the Republicans just refuse to consider any nominee by a Liberal President and wait until a Liberal Justices dies or retires...
Correct me if I am wrong, but does the Constitution state how many Justices
must be on the Supreme Court ?
Couldn't the Republicans just refuse to consider any nominee by a Liberal President and wait until a Liberal Justices dies or retires...
2
Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine, where it has remained ever since. New legislation would have to be passed to change that.
FDR's proposal to manipulate the number of justices to change the court composition in 1937 was a political disaster for him.
FDR's proposal to manipulate the number of justices to change the court composition in 1937 was a political disaster for him.
7
HI Cayley,
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution demanding 9 Judges.
As for the Judiciary Act - it is a law and it can be interpreted and
followed as the Senate sees fit as they alone have the power to
confirm justices. [ Please note the Act says 6 Justices form
a quorum..]
Again, there is nothing in the Constitution demanding 9 Judges.
As for the Judiciary Act - it is a law and it can be interpreted and
followed as the Senate sees fit as they alone have the power to
confirm justices. [ Please note the Act says 6 Justices form
a quorum..]
2
Frankly, I believe what the GOP-led Senate is doing is in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Can a citizen bring before the Supreme Court of the United States a perceived violation of our Constitution by elected representatives?
If so, count me as willing to assist in such a case in any way I can, be it on the phones, by donations, even arguing the case myself. Why, I imagine there are many in this nation who would do so if they knew they knew it were possible.
Along those same lines, Trump says he'll bail out the hooligans who assault demonstrators. Why can't we shake free of the do-nothing Senate and free this Presidential nominee?
Come to think of it...why can't we bring a civil charge of incitement to riot against Trump if no police department is willing to do so?
Can a citizen bring before the Supreme Court of the United States a perceived violation of our Constitution by elected representatives?
If so, count me as willing to assist in such a case in any way I can, be it on the phones, by donations, even arguing the case myself. Why, I imagine there are many in this nation who would do so if they knew they knew it were possible.
Along those same lines, Trump says he'll bail out the hooligans who assault demonstrators. Why can't we shake free of the do-nothing Senate and free this Presidential nominee?
Come to think of it...why can't we bring a civil charge of incitement to riot against Trump if no police department is willing to do so?
13
An addendum to my prior post:
"There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored." Robert Bork
"There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored." Robert Bork
8
Thank you, President Obama should have read that during his nomination speech today.
1
When Republicans don't like or agree with history they invent their own, as the Washington "Examiner" so ably, and aptly, proves...
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Karl Rove, 2004
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Karl Rove, 2004
12
I rather think we can date the worst, most unpatriotic Republican period of our history from the rise of that master of deception and fraud, Karl Rove. THAT's how you'll be studied, doughboy.
8
Philip Kurland, UofC Prof, and no radical testified against the Bork nomination. At least he got to testify!
"Bork is either the moderate, restrained New Deal-type jurist that he is depicted to be by some of his recent advocates in the press. Or he is the 'original intent' constitutional revisionist as he has depicted himself to be in his talks to the Federalist Society and in other forums throughout the country. Either way, the Senate is entitled to have the real Robert Bork presented to it for its advice and consent."
"Bork is either the moderate, restrained New Deal-type jurist that he is depicted to be by some of his recent advocates in the press. Or he is the 'original intent' constitutional revisionist as he has depicted himself to be in his talks to the Federalist Society and in other forums throughout the country. Either way, the Senate is entitled to have the real Robert Bork presented to it for its advice and consent."
7
It would be a brilliant move for the Republicans to quickly reverse their intransigent position and hold the hearing. They could say that they adhere to the law and have, as lawyers often do, reconsidered their prior ruling. If they don't allow the hearing, they will alienate many independents as well as some Republicans who are fearful of what is happening to their party and what it is doing to it and the nation. The denial of process would also energize and further polarize Democrats.
However, the Republican party in its current form is not noted for brilliance and will likely continue to further drift into the wild red yonder.
However, the Republican party in its current form is not noted for brilliance and will likely continue to further drift into the wild red yonder.
7
I say give Garland a hearing before his execution. At least it will give Ted Cruz something new to go ballistic over.
The most compelling evidence that Bork was unfit to serve as a member of SCOTUS comes from his own memoir. Nixon wanted his Attorney General to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and he refused and resigned. The next in line at Justice did the same thing. Then Nixon asked number three at Justice, one Robert Bork and Bork did Nixon's bidding. In his memoir Bork stated quite clearly that Nixon offered him the next open seat on SCOTUS IF he fired Cox.
Does taking bribes associated with lifetime court appointments disqualify a person from becoming a judge? I sure think so. Bork was Borked because of deeeeeeep character flaws, nothing more, nothing less.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bork-nixon-offered-me-scotus-seat-for-...
Does taking bribes associated with lifetime court appointments disqualify a person from becoming a judge? I sure think so. Bork was Borked because of deeeeeeep character flaws, nothing more, nothing less.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bork-nixon-offered-me-scotus-seat-for-...
46
No fan of Bork (or Nixon) here, but if you read the article you posted, it is clear that Nixon did not make the statement "promising" Bork a Supreme Court nomination untila after Bork had sent the letter firing Cox.
Still, you are right that Bork was a deeply flawed jurist.
Still, you are right that Bork was a deeply flawed jurist.
1
Bravo, this should be the headline.
"Bring it on"?
Like all nominees post-Bork, Garland will evade all questions as to his ideology and how he intends to vote. He will say nothing and reveal nothing.
Like him or not, Bork was up front, sharing his views freely and honestly.
So, no comparison.
Bork surely did "bring it on."
Garland will not.
Like all nominees post-Bork, Garland will evade all questions as to his ideology and how he intends to vote. He will say nothing and reveal nothing.
Like him or not, Bork was up front, sharing his views freely and honestly.
So, no comparison.
Bork surely did "bring it on."
Garland will not.
3
Bork was a direct and deliberate challenge to separation of church and state. Judge Garland has a long record of sticking to the facts and laws of cases.
9
Ms. Greenhouse has pointed out the glaring inconsistencies between today's nomination of Merrick Garland and the history of Robert Bork. So far, there exists no parallel. Bork was given a hearing. Bork was given a vote in the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate. Bork was an unapologetic ideologue. Bork was voted down, robustly, by Senators from both parties.
Garland is anything but Bork v.2, no matter how Mitch McConnell and John Barrasso might wish to spin it. McConnell is simply refusing to carry out a critical constitutional mandate, an impeachable offense by any reasonable standard of job performance.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Garland is anything but Bork v.2, no matter how Mitch McConnell and John Barrasso might wish to spin it. McConnell is simply refusing to carry out a critical constitutional mandate, an impeachable offense by any reasonable standard of job performance.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
468
Be careful about mentioning impeachable offenses. Period.
John, to everybody like you who cries from the rooftops that the actions contemplated by the Republicans are unconstitutional, I say that if that is the case then you have a legal remedy.
The truth is that, however unpalatable it may be to you, the Republicans will be acting entirely within the Constitution. Don't confuse your ideology with the law. They are two different things.
The truth is that, however unpalatable it may be to you, the Republicans will be acting entirely within the Constitution. Don't confuse your ideology with the law. They are two different things.
2
Just like the GOP front-runner for POTUS, the Senate Repub leaders feel they're above the fray and don't have to give sensible, reasoned explanations for anything to the American people they're asking to trust them. Who would vote for their re-election when all we get is gridlock and obstructionism?
3
In another article in todays NYT, experts rated Garland as liberal as any other member of the liberal wing of this court, do you really think the Republicans are going to roll over, play dead, and give this guy a hearing and a rejection this summer to give the left a bludgeon to use in election season? Honest liberal test: if the shoe were on the other foot would you? I thought so.
3
Isn't that exactly the way the system is supposed to work? If the people of the United States would be appalled by Republican refusal to confirm this man, then they should know that the Republicans would, in fact, refuse to confirm him. Hiding that truth from the public with procedural gimmickry, which is clearly against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but not subject to meaningful enforcement, is the opposite of what our democratic process requires.
If, on the other hand, Judge Garland is not qualified for the Court, then defeating his confirmation would not be met with electoral punishment. Quite the contrary, the Democrats came off very well when they defeated Bork for being an unvarnished ideologue, and Congress generally got some credit for defeating (albeit without needing to vote) the Harriet Miers nomination for utter lack of qualifications.
If, on the other hand, Judge Garland is not qualified for the Court, then defeating his confirmation would not be met with electoral punishment. Quite the contrary, the Democrats came off very well when they defeated Bork for being an unvarnished ideologue, and Congress generally got some credit for defeating (albeit without needing to vote) the Harriet Miers nomination for utter lack of qualifications.
4
makes no difference if he were bork, they won't give anyone a hearing, they are truly sickening and should be impeached and removed from office.
5
Does McConnell's argument that the people should have a voice in the selection of the next supreme court justice mean that he will vote for the next President Clinton's nominee should she be elected by the people? Someone should ask him.
10
The president is NOT elected by "the people", but by electors. See US
Constitution, Article II.
Constitution, Article II.
2
The Republicans prefer to wait for Trump to be inaugurated so he can nominate Judge Judy.
22
It's no wonder that Donald Trump is the standard bearer for republican politicians.
Republican politicians ... actually the sentence completes itself.
Republican politicians ... actually the sentence completes itself.
7
A question that needs to be asked at the next Republican debate:
If you're elected as President would you be willing to forfeit any federal judge appointments during your fourth year in office?
I wonder what the replies will be.
If you're elected as President would you be willing to forfeit any federal judge appointments during your fourth year in office?
I wonder what the replies will be.
39
Bork was better than Clarence Thomas. We should have let him pass. The Republicans wouldn't have a case if it weren't for Bork and Joe Biden's foot in the mouth remarks.
6
We got Kennedy instead of Bork. There's no reason to believe that we would have gotten Kennedy if Bork (and Doug Ginsburg) hadn't gone down in flames (or "up in smoke," as the case may be) first.
2
Bork was worse than Thomas; the Republicans never had a case and still don't that's why they have to lie and; you're taking Biden out of context. Three strikes.
7
We got Kennedy, not Thomas, instead of Bork - an absolute win.
Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall - a cynical ploy by Bush to replace an African-American champion of civil rights with another African-American: but one who was as hostile to civil rights protection as they could find. The could not find such a man who was highly qualified, and Thomas got one of the lowest ratings from the ABA for a SCOTUS nominee on record (and that after being put under intense pressure by the Bush Administration to goose the rating).
Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall - a cynical ploy by Bush to replace an African-American champion of civil rights with another African-American: but one who was as hostile to civil rights protection as they could find. The could not find such a man who was highly qualified, and Thomas got one of the lowest ratings from the ABA for a SCOTUS nominee on record (and that after being put under intense pressure by the Bush Administration to goose the rating).
6
Did you actually use the word "courtesy" in connection with how Teddy Kennedy & Company treated Robert Bork? Really?
5
Courtesy? Oh you mean what the SIX Republican Senators who voted against Bork offered?
3
To Bork = Hold a hearing; ask tough but fair questions of a nominee; allow the full Senate to vote up or down on his appointment. All Obama is asking for is the Senate to treat his nominee with the same respect they gave Bork.
11
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bork-nixon-offered-me-scotus-seat-for-... No one mistreated bork, he said it all himself.
8
And despite the Republicans claiming that it was Bork's views that doomed him there was also that matter of the "Saturday Night Massacre" where the president essentially said he had right to do anything he wanted and after two of his cabinet officials, stalwart Republicans both, resigned in disagreement, he found a lap dog named Bork to do his dirty work.
Bork clearly showed that when it came to standing up for the law he had, as Teddy Roosevelt used to say of opponents, "all the backbone of a chocolate eclair."
Bork clearly showed that when it came to standing up for the law he had, as Teddy Roosevelt used to say of opponents, "all the backbone of a chocolate eclair."
140
Bravo for this comment! I have always thought that, aside from Bork's radical viewpoints, the real reason for rejecting him was his disregard for the rule of law during the Saturday Night Massacre. The media never mentions it but, I suspect, his lack of ethics united Republicans and Democrats against him.
14
The answer is no. No one that Obama nominates is acceptable.
8
As a Republican, I have a huge problem with this comment. Guys like you are who are dividing this country right now. Are you seriously so closed minded that you will reject anyone Obama nominates before you even know who they are? I'm not saying the GOP as to accept anyone Obama puts out there...but good grief...at least give the nominee a chance. If it turns out he is incompetent, we'll just turn him down. Simple as that. We need to bring back compromise and unity to DC. You aren't helping things buddy.
19
BostonGuy: And your reasoning for the NO is???? Oh, right, I forgot, the President was elected by the majority of the voting public and that was wrong - you wanted the other guy. Racist - look in your mirror!
2
Ms. Greenhouse,
A nice clear essay again, still all too rare in Legal Writing.
However...
Whether one approved or did not approve of Judge Bork's views -
his reasoning should have been respected and, perhaps, even allowed onto
the Supreme Court as he pointed out the flaws in various Supreme Court
decisions of the past.
a) There is no "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution - if you want it there
either pass an Amendment/Federal Law or Laws in all 50 States.
b) Roe vs Wade was/is/and will be a disaster and is not justified via the
Constitution - see (a) above for possible resolution.
c) The whole issue of "Women's Rights" is all over the legal map - see (a)
above for possible resolution.
d) By not relying upon the Constitution but Sociological surveys, Psychologists,
the Laws of Foreign lands, a feeling that the time had come for...
The Supreme Court has lost status, become almost wholly politicised and finds
itself in the present mess...the decision last year for "Same Gender Marriages"
is a legal/constitutional travesty...the States were working the issue out as the
Constitution allows - the Supreme Court had no Constitutional Right to intervene.
Confirming Bork may have seemed wrong but in the long run it would have done
the Supreme Court and the Country a great deal of good.
Judge Garland is not going to be approved by the Republicans for the
Supreme Court, as all such appointments have become political and this is
the most political year in a very long time.
A nice clear essay again, still all too rare in Legal Writing.
However...
Whether one approved or did not approve of Judge Bork's views -
his reasoning should have been respected and, perhaps, even allowed onto
the Supreme Court as he pointed out the flaws in various Supreme Court
decisions of the past.
a) There is no "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution - if you want it there
either pass an Amendment/Federal Law or Laws in all 50 States.
b) Roe vs Wade was/is/and will be a disaster and is not justified via the
Constitution - see (a) above for possible resolution.
c) The whole issue of "Women's Rights" is all over the legal map - see (a)
above for possible resolution.
d) By not relying upon the Constitution but Sociological surveys, Psychologists,
the Laws of Foreign lands, a feeling that the time had come for...
The Supreme Court has lost status, become almost wholly politicised and finds
itself in the present mess...the decision last year for "Same Gender Marriages"
is a legal/constitutional travesty...the States were working the issue out as the
Constitution allows - the Supreme Court had no Constitutional Right to intervene.
Confirming Bork may have seemed wrong but in the long run it would have done
the Supreme Court and the Country a great deal of good.
Judge Garland is not going to be approved by the Republicans for the
Supreme Court, as all such appointments have become political and this is
the most political year in a very long time.
3
Agree or disagree with the reasoning in Roe v. Wade, the issue of privacy in the 4th amendment was settled by the Supreme Court long before Roe v. Wade.
And it's often forgotten that prior to the Bork nomination there were the assaults on Abe Fortas by House minority leader Gerald Ford and his Republican caucus. The current partisan climate surrounding SCOTUS nominations pre-dates Bork.
And it's often forgotten that prior to the Bork nomination there were the assaults on Abe Fortas by House minority leader Gerald Ford and his Republican caucus. The current partisan climate surrounding SCOTUS nominations pre-dates Bork.
5
Wrong on no Constututional right to intervene on same sex marriage. The 6th circuit decision going contrary to the other circuits upholding the state courts permitting it resulted in a split among the circuits which confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to resolve.
6
The man supported Nixon's "if the president says it's legal it's legal" view. He was repulsive to many Republicans (you remember them?). His reasoning is what caused his rejection. You skirt around well regulated militia, free speech=money, corporations are people.
11
I'm an independent voter and its antics like this that have made it virtually impossible for me to vote for a Republican.
191
If only 200 million more voters had the clarity of vision you express in your own disappointment with the GOP. I still proudly call myself an Independent, but over the last 8 or 12 years, I find myself voting more and more the straight Democratic ticket. The stench from Republican candidates and the GOP in general is becoming too much to stomach.
11
The Republican party today is a bunch of constitutional nihilists and common liars. I, for one, am relishing the sight of one Donald Trump putting the GOP on fire with the torch its leaders have handed him. Burn, baby, burn!
62
Mitch McConnel's mythical Biden Rule which he has framed incorrectly as a type of Constitutional ruling is just political smoke and mirrors. Biden allowed Bork's candidacy to proceed even though the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected him.
The GOP et al are behaving like Tec Cruz as they are emulating his shutdown disease scenario whenever possible. Demanding that the Supreme Court operate a judge short does not technically stop operations but it does limit its ability to function effectively.
GOP believes in:
anti-government or
ineffecitive government or a
shutdown government
But not...
US Constitution or
my vote and the 55 million other who voted for Barack Obama as the Nominator-in-Chief
The GOP et al are behaving like Tec Cruz as they are emulating his shutdown disease scenario whenever possible. Demanding that the Supreme Court operate a judge short does not technically stop operations but it does limit its ability to function effectively.
GOP believes in:
anti-government or
ineffecitive government or a
shutdown government
But not...
US Constitution or
my vote and the 55 million other who voted for Barack Obama as the Nominator-in-Chief
36
65 million. Twice. More than all the GOP senators combined.
11
A three-year term for a President is a novel idea being advanced by Republican Senators. I cannot locate that provision in the Constitution.
156
Republicans also believe that President Clinton's second term was 5 years - just long enough that 9/11 happened on his watch.
6
Bork is an excuse. It has, of course, nothing to do with Judge Garland. It is another example of petty spitefulness and disrespect directed at President Obama by republicans. But this is nothing new for republicans. The Clintons were subjected to the same treatment with allegations of a White water scandal, and even murder with the death of Vince Foster. Then there was the swift boating of John Kerry, and the smearing of Max Cleland. Obstruction, fruitless investigation, innuendo, and flat out lies. It is the republican way!
168
Actually, it's the only way they can ever win!
9
I love how Liberals attempt to rewrite history. The fact is Bork was the target of the most shameful character assasination which is unequaled in congressional history. Senate Democrats aided, as always, by the Liberal media and its cohorts in the Liberal-Left environs of academia and Feminism vilified and slandered Bork to a degree that his name has now become a synonym for being unjustly defamed and slandered.
7
You are missing the point of the essay. Bork, "character assassination" or not, had his hearing. That is what the constitution requires and what should be done. The Republicans are well aware that NO Obama nominee would give them the opportunity for "borking" because the President is not a stupid person. Their motives are transparent and deplorable in their disregard for their constitutional duties.
11
"the most shameful character assasination [sic] which is unequaled in congressional history."
No, I think that distinction (at least in recent history) might belong to the gang of cowards who slandered Anita Hill for having the temerity to raise legitimate concerns about confirming an incompetent and possibly criminal nominee to the nation's highest court.
No, I think that distinction (at least in recent history) might belong to the gang of cowards who slandered Anita Hill for having the temerity to raise legitimate concerns about confirming an incompetent and possibly criminal nominee to the nation's highest court.
12
And the Republicans that voted against Bork?
5
The Republicans during Obama's tenure have accomplished nothing. Now they don't even pretend to be interested in doing their jobs any more. They stalled the Federal government for seven years in hopes of blaming their inaction on Obama. Failing their only goal of making Obama a one term president, they got reelected in no small part because of gerrymandering and denying citizens their right to vote. And all the "conservatives" that just woke up to the fact they've been getting hoodwinked by the republican party for the last three decades ? They're going to protest vote for Trump. USA USA USA !
14
The Republicans are not going to conduct a confirmation hearing. When McConnell announced that decision, an extensive debate followed regarding the propriety of his actions. I don't think Obama is interested in another debate. Having made his appointment, the legal right of Republicans not to hold hearings is ripe for litigation. Public opinion is not going to decide this dispute. The Republicans will not back off voluntarily. Surely, Obama knows all this and that the only way to get a hearing is to go to court and demand one. There isn't a lot of time. Forget about the posturing. This case is headed to court, and sooner rather than later.
173
This case is not headed to court. No federal court is going to even consider ordering the Senate to conduct hearings. It would very likely be considered non-justiciable as a political question since 1) the actual application of "advise and consent" was given to the Senate and 2) exactly what would the judicial standard be? A single committee hearing. Two hearings? The fact that this is a SCOTUS nomination only supports that since you'd have a potential conflict in SCOTUS ruling on hearings to fill a slot in its own ranks.
4
The federal courts are in the business of interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court recently decided the rules regarding recess appointments. Deciding the rules governing appointments is therefore justiciable. It's a Constitutional dictate, not a political question. And if you think that SCOTUS has a conflict because this case affects the Court directly, you need to read the most important Court decision ever, Marbury v. Madison, where the Court established its own powers vis a vis the other branches of government. I beg to differ with you. This case is headed to Court. And it will be studied in law schools for years to come.
3
In Bush v Gore, the court stated that a partial recount would trample on George W Bush's rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and that there was no alternative remedy. In the spirit of Judge Scalia's decision in Bush v Gore, the Senate should not trample upon the equal protection rights of Merrick Garland to have a fair hearing that would either place him as a Supreme Court Justice or deny the same. Then the Senators would be accountable for either approving the nomination or denying it. Isn't that the meaning of responsibility that our elected officials seem to demand of the populace? Why shouldn't they live up to the same expectations?
5
Republican senators might as well just close down Congress and go home for the year. They should not draw salaries or benefits. They have done almost nothing for years but obstruct the president who was elected by almost 66 million Americans.
Boycotting a Supreme Court nominee is fairly ridiculous. Advise and consent does not mean as Sen. McConnell just said that the Senate does not consent. They have not held hearings or a vote yet. Refusing to consent without any consideration of the nominee is an abdication of their Constitutional duties.
They refuse to do their jobs. Maybe only the Democratic senators should conduct Senate business in the meantime.
Boycotting a Supreme Court nominee is fairly ridiculous. Advise and consent does not mean as Sen. McConnell just said that the Senate does not consent. They have not held hearings or a vote yet. Refusing to consent without any consideration of the nominee is an abdication of their Constitutional duties.
They refuse to do their jobs. Maybe only the Democratic senators should conduct Senate business in the meantime.
44
I wish people would remind republicans that when LBJ nominated Abe Fortas to the Chief Justice seat that he was rejected by senate conservatives, in an election year, out of anti-liberal spite (the 2 parties hadn't reached their current alignments ideologically at the time).
Conservatives blew up the process back in 1968. Bork was simply a continuation of the precedent that they set.
Conservatives blew up the process back in 1968. Bork was simply a continuation of the precedent that they set.
11
Why use the euphemisms like "conservatives" and "anti-liberal spite" to reference the white supremacist agenda of those from both parties who used the Fortas nomination to resist the civil rights movement? Call it what it is.
5
@stancat
Actually, the Fortas case was quite different from Bork's. Fortas was appointed to the Court as an Associate Justice on October 4, 1965, despite what many senators felt was an excessive load of questionable baggage including an all too cozy personal relationship with LBJ himself. In June 1968, when Earl Warren announced he was retiring, LBJ nominated Fortas to succeed Warren as Chief Justice; another fight took place and Fortas was rejected. He remained on the Court as an Associate Justice until even greater ethics problems, including once again his relationship with President Johnson, forced him to resign in May of 1969 rather than face impeachment...
Actually, the Fortas case was quite different from Bork's. Fortas was appointed to the Court as an Associate Justice on October 4, 1965, despite what many senators felt was an excessive load of questionable baggage including an all too cozy personal relationship with LBJ himself. In June 1968, when Earl Warren announced he was retiring, LBJ nominated Fortas to succeed Warren as Chief Justice; another fight took place and Fortas was rejected. He remained on the Court as an Associate Justice until even greater ethics problems, including once again his relationship with President Johnson, forced him to resign in May of 1969 rather than face impeachment...
4
The current impasse over the nomination of a Supreme Court justice has absolutely nothing to do with his qualifications, but everything to do with the veiled racist, anti-Obama agenda of now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. What we are witnessing is not payback for Robert Bork, but obstruction that defies the very Constitution Republican Senators have sworn an oath to "support and defend." It may not be the "revolution" Bernie Sanders wanted, but it is a revolution nonetheless. To overthrow the Constitution in favor of your political party is the ultimate act of anarchy that the Republican/Tea Party has unfortunately bequeathed to America. It is a partisan act of sedition that must not be allowed to stand if we are to live under "the rule of law" of our foundational document.
34
Sen. McConnell keeps trying to portray the Senate Republicans' stonewalling of this nomination as a noble bow to the democratic process--a quest to "Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy." He has even gone so far as to accuse the President of politicizing the nomination because the President is fulfilling his constitutional duty (making Sen. McConnell the most irony-deaf person in America). Senator, it may have escaped your notice, but the American people have spoken in regard to filling this vacancy. They elected President Obama. For a full four-year term. Twice. Please stop pretending that this charade is anything more than another attempt to subvert the Constitution.
59
Mendacious Republican but I repeat myself.
5
I'm more than tired about hearing about Bork being used as an excuse for this latest Republican example of dereliction of duty.
Judge Bork was nominated. Senators met with him, the Judiciary Committee conducted hearings and the nomination was sent to the full Senate. The nomination was voted down. Period! That is a prerogative of the Senate.
Bork was not the first nominee to be turned down. But if Republicans continue on this path, this will be the first time Senators refuse to even consider the nominee of a rightfully elected President. I'm disgusted by that - every American should be.
Judge Bork was nominated. Senators met with him, the Judiciary Committee conducted hearings and the nomination was sent to the full Senate. The nomination was voted down. Period! That is a prerogative of the Senate.
Bork was not the first nominee to be turned down. But if Republicans continue on this path, this will be the first time Senators refuse to even consider the nominee of a rightfully elected President. I'm disgusted by that - every American should be.
150
True, but not the full story. The Judiciary Committee voted against Bork. Then, instead of accepting the inevitable and withdrawing, he raised a squeal like a stuck hog. And then the full Senate predictably rejected him. Only after that did he retire into private life, occasionally coughing up jeremiads that W. J. Bryan would have found old-fashioned and puritanical.
8
Comparing Robert Bork and Merrick Garland is like comparing a symphony and an orchestra; it cannot be done because they're two unlike things. Mr. Bork was clearly on the extreme right of women's rights and minority gains preceding his nomination by a scant 30 years. Judge Garland is middle-of-the-road, almost pure vanilla. I don't for a moment believe that Judge Garland was President Obama's first (or second) choice, but, as Michael Corleone once said, "it's the smart move." The Republicans in Congress will tie themselves in knots trying to justify their refusal of even the barest civility and courtesy to Judge Garland (not to mention the sitting president, to whom courtesy is certainly due, but, with this posse, has been conspicuously lacking since he took his first oath on January 20, 2009. In the end, I think they have to give Judge Garland a hearing and a vote, and if it comes to a vote, they must confirm. They have no reasonable justification for denying this president's choice. Unless, of course, it's all about *this* president.
562
Any commentator that can quote Michael Corleone gets a thumbs up from me. And I agree.
6
And if they don't, maybe a President Hillary would nominate a certain ex-President?
6
it is
1
I'd be interested to know what other presidential duties Sen. McConnell would like President Obama to cease and desist from during his last year in office? Signing bills? Commanding our armed forces? Directing foreign policy? In the end, the GOP will pay the price for their efforts to become more partisan, self involved and obstructionist. The nation is worse off for losing a national party fulfilling it's role as the loyal opposition with ideas, honestly held points of view, and good faith to contribute to the national dialogue. It is terribly sad to see the once great party of Lincoln disintegrate, decay, and destroy itself. Cleveland in July, RIP GOP.
27
Amen. Although after hearing The Donald's latest pronouncement about what might happen if he is not given the nomination in Cleveland, I'm more worried about my memories of August 1968 in Chicago.
1
Signing outrageous executive orders and negotiating treaties and then calling them agreements that do not need Senate approval are a few that come to mind.
1
@jrig
"It is terribly sad to see the once great party of Lincoln disintegrate, decay, and destroy itself. Cleveland in July, RIP GOP."
You are suffering from a bad case of Leftoplexia caused by an overdose of left-wing ideological tea, which drives otherwise sane and well-intentioned people to believe true that which is only hoped for...
"It is terribly sad to see the once great party of Lincoln disintegrate, decay, and destroy itself. Cleveland in July, RIP GOP."
You are suffering from a bad case of Leftoplexia caused by an overdose of left-wing ideological tea, which drives otherwise sane and well-intentioned people to believe true that which is only hoped for...
"The only way the Republicans can come out ahead in a public conversation about this particular nominee is by not having it."
Nominee suppression, idea suppression, speech suppression, voter suppression, science suppression, government suppression....the list never ends for Republicans on suppressing American democracy.
Sedition is the entire Republican Party platform.
Nominee suppression, idea suppression, speech suppression, voter suppression, science suppression, government suppression....the list never ends for Republicans on suppressing American democracy.
Sedition is the entire Republican Party platform.
407
I agree. Republicans by and large don't like government. Just Anarchy, or Corparchy.
2
S,
The first problem is we're a Republic not a Democracy. The founders had a distrust of democracies because most of the prior ones had ended with the people voting to spend themselves into bankruptcy. Does that sound familiar?
The first problem is we're a Republic not a Democracy. The founders had a distrust of democracies because most of the prior ones had ended with the people voting to spend themselves into bankruptcy. Does that sound familiar?
2
Socrates:
Plato could not have said it better. Thanks.
Plato could not have said it better. Thanks.
As always, a great piece by Linda Greenhouse, the best legal writer about the Supreme Court in journalism today (although retired!). But the headline is misleading: to evolve Bork's name in bold type creates a false comparison. Bork was deeply ideological. This fight--a refusal to engage--is about whether stalling or refusing to act on a President's nomination to the Supreme Court, delaying until he (one day, she) is out of office is a legitimate use of power or an overreach that breaches tradition, exceeds unwritten standards of duty and a sworn allegiance to one of the world's oldest democratic constitutions to quash a President's choice purely for and by reasons of partisan politics in a fight over power, when the Constitution provides a path and orderly process to refuse (or affirm) President Obama's nominee.
In abandoning Constitutional procedure and tradition, in passively resisting carrying out the orderly work of advise and consent, Republican senators are seeking to end the President's powers and his term nearly a year before its official end. This is grab for power on two fronts: to expand partisanship to a new extreme and to render the Executive feeble and ineffective by Senatorial indifference (in the name of the American people--who elected the President twice for 4 year terms). The Times quoted Pres. Obama as saying, "it is tempting to make the confirmation process “an extension of our divided politics.” But he warned, “to go down that path would be wrong."
In abandoning Constitutional procedure and tradition, in passively resisting carrying out the orderly work of advise and consent, Republican senators are seeking to end the President's powers and his term nearly a year before its official end. This is grab for power on two fronts: to expand partisanship to a new extreme and to render the Executive feeble and ineffective by Senatorial indifference (in the name of the American people--who elected the President twice for 4 year terms). The Times quoted Pres. Obama as saying, "it is tempting to make the confirmation process “an extension of our divided politics.” But he warned, “to go down that path would be wrong."
181
Do you recommend that the Republicans "Bork" Mr. Garland?
5
Your question is both silly and immaterial. The only part of the "borking" that applies in this essay is that Bork got a hearing. Are you recommending that Garland should not?
7
Yes, Republicans should "bork' Garland. He deserves a hearing and a vote.
5
At least they's be doing something...
Great thanks for the brief summary of the Bork process; I could remember worries about his approach to rights as defined - or not - by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and his own contentiousness, but not the basics: no filibuster, thorough hearings, a vote. I can in no way imagine how the GOP can attack Garland without looking like fools. Now, should Judge Garland walk the halls of Congress, will Senators flee before him, avoiding his gaze ?
Aside from this, this concept of how what is "mainstream" is continually shifting is helpful - altho' it seems as though we are in the midst of dual mainstreams, with factions who have been clutching a separate reality since 1987 -- or maybe 1973 - with eyes firmly fixed on the past. Think same sex anything.
Aside from this, this concept of how what is "mainstream" is continually shifting is helpful - altho' it seems as though we are in the midst of dual mainstreams, with factions who have been clutching a separate reality since 1987 -- or maybe 1973 - with eyes firmly fixed on the past. Think same sex anything.
31
The Republican leadership is digging a grave for that Great Old Party: a sad footnote denoting the fact that Lilliputs with closed minds are now at the helm of a great institution! I am reminded of a Gandhi quote -- you can wake up a sleeping person, but cannot wake up someone who is feigning sleep! The election is coming, people will be speaking up!
19
The Bork Hearing, while unusually contentious in its day, is the model of decorum by today's standards.
25
McConnell is doing exactly what is fueling Trump's candidacy, creating partisan gridlock. Why doesn't he get that? Doing the same thing and expecting different results.
70
According to Albert Einstein, that's the definition of insanity.
4
Good point. Those in both the Trump and Sanders camps are disgusted with Washington. And here we have a display of the Washington that they despise. McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, the late Bohner, the rising Schumer. (Ryan seems different) And then a many Washington zombies who should be retired. WE HAVE TO VOTE THEM OUT. Your Senator, your Representative. Out with the old bums. Elect some new bums.
3
Republicans are creating a constitutional crisis. How about breaking their obstruction by taking the whole matter to the Supreme Court. Ideally the Supreme Court would insist that the Senate do an up or down vote on Garland. If they do not, maybe the entire Republican Congress can be held in contempt. including jail time as punishment. Come to think of it, putting the entire Republican caucus in jail for awhile might actually help the US Congress to do the job we are paying for, which is to solve problems by legislating.
63
First, the case would have to be heard by the DC Circuit Court. Where Judge Garland is the chief judge.
6
Senate Majority Leader McConnell has announced a unique and quite radical interpretation of the Constitution, that it's not really a set of interlocking duties but instead a menu of options. He apparently believes that, throughout the Constitution, there is the following implicit text, attached to every definition of a constitutional duty: "to be performed if there is sufficient partisan political advantage in doing so."
55
With the increasing likelihood that Trump will be their presidential nominee and all that brings with it... I predict that the Senate republicans will deeply regret these decisions a year from now.
21
Only if President Trump nominates a left wing radical...
Similarly, the Democratic majority in 1991 gave Clarence Thomas a hearing (what a hearing!) and a vote, including 11 Democratic votes to confirm. This, despite his being only 43, with 18 months of judicial experience, and with baggage.
Merrick Garland is 63, has 18 years of top judicial experience, and has no baggage. Despite their party's dysfunction, the Senate Republicans must act.
Merrick Garland is 63, has 18 years of top judicial experience, and has no baggage. Despite their party's dysfunction, the Senate Republicans must act.
295
I don't know, the Republicans may be on to something here. "Garlanded" just has a more happy sound than "Borked". A four letter last name is just asking to be verbed.
5
Senator Warren is right to chastise Senator McConnell and her colloquies in the Senate "Just do your job!". The Republican dominated Senate can come out of the shadows and publicly vote down an outstanding jurist who would add a much needed intelligent, moderate voice to the court. Just do your job! And then the voting public can do their job in November.
130
And throw out every single Republican running for office.
This is not the Bork Battle all over again. This is the Obama Battle all over again.
If the Republicans have been consistent about anything, it is about their hatred--and I do mean hatred--of President Obama. Nothing has changed with this nomination. I believe that if even Scalia were resurrected and nominated that the Senate Republicans would still hold firm in their obstructionism. Indeed, that is the conversation that this nomination should stimulate: Are there no limits to Republican obstructionism?
If the Republicans have been consistent about anything, it is about their hatred--and I do mean hatred--of President Obama. Nothing has changed with this nomination. I believe that if even Scalia were resurrected and nominated that the Senate Republicans would still hold firm in their obstructionism. Indeed, that is the conversation that this nomination should stimulate: Are there no limits to Republican obstructionism?
837
No...I disagree. the conversation this dereliction of duty should stimulate is conversation about the fact that the republicans are acting unconstitutionally and what we, the citizens of the United States need to do about it.
8
The real question is - why did they hate Obama from his first day in office? Let me guess - he should look at the mirror to find out!
7
What are the limits to Repub obstructionism, and if those limits have been exceeded, what are the penalties for the EXTREME obstructionism?
5
Fair hearing?
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."
10
What is the problem with that? That is exactly what Robert Bork stood for, his record, after all, was public record. As a woman, I was more than relieved when Bork was rejected. He would have done terrible damage to civil rights, especially to those that apply exclusively to women.
28
Perhaps, but the process continued. He had hearings, Bork got to testify and even though he was not recommended his nomination went to the full senate. How about the GOP tries doing its job. The GOP since Obama was elected has been willing to sink the boat to kill the captain...I call that treason!
27
Your quotation of Ted Kennedy's condemnation is not proof of unfairness at all. You didn't like the outcome of the vote, but the vote was done despite the fact that the Judiciary committee of the Senate didn't recommend him for confirmation. The process was fair. How is it you can't see the difference between holding hearings which resulted in a vote and refusing to meet with the nominee much less hold hearings or vote?
43
You give Mitch McConnell et al. too much credit. They don't care about anything except turning out Republican voters in November so they can keep the Senate. This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS beyond the situation being used as a craven tool to motivate their base.
If they can convince the GOP rank and file, one last time that voting for a Dem is the precursor to signing a pact with Satan, they've won. As long as they hold Congress their corporate masters get whatever they want and the 99% go on losing.
If they can convince the GOP rank and file, one last time that voting for a Dem is the precursor to signing a pact with Satan, they've won. As long as they hold Congress their corporate masters get whatever they want and the 99% go on losing.
49
Originalist thinking is the latest racism. Important to the GOP because they view the Constitution from the vantage of a rich, white, property owner. How convenient.
29
Thank you for writing this. I wish it could somehow be read on a network news program so that a huge audience could see what's going on here.
121
The Senate did many things in the Bork nomination, but extending the man a courtesy was not one of them.
8
Bork got a vote. Garland won't. Therefore, it's a false equivalence. Give the man a vote or admit you're obstructing.
228
Bork was extended the courtesy of being heard.
The President nominates, the Senate conducts hearings and either confirms or not. You may disagree with the Senate's decision but that is their job. This Republican Senate refuses to do their job - no excuse for it.
The President nominates, the Senate conducts hearings and either confirms or not. You may disagree with the Senate's decision but that is their job. This Republican Senate refuses to do their job - no excuse for it.
770
Giving the man consideration and a chance to speak in front of the American people was not a courtesy? After the vote in the Judiciary Committee, there was no requirement to send the nomination to the floor of the Senate.
97
Mitch McConell says we should let the American people have a voice in filling the Supreme Court vacancy and I agree.
The people spoke resoundingly to re-elect the current President. What manner of patriotism does the Republican Party follow that it would deny the people its rightful voice? Perhaps the party of obstruct and divide could take a bold step in the direction of putting duty and service to the nation above partisanship. It would be a dramatic example of how our political system can actually work, especially at this moment in history when that system seems to be crumbing beneath us.
The people spoke resoundingly to re-elect the current President. What manner of patriotism does the Republican Party follow that it would deny the people its rightful voice? Perhaps the party of obstruct and divide could take a bold step in the direction of putting duty and service to the nation above partisanship. It would be a dramatic example of how our political system can actually work, especially at this moment in history when that system seems to be crumbing beneath us.
863
The New Yorker once had a cartoon showing a street sign in NYC saying "Parking yesterday, Parking tomorrow, but never Parking today."
Perhaps that's the future of the Court. President's can have nominated justices in the past and can in the future but never nominate any now.
Perhaps that's the future of the Court. President's can have nominated justices in the past and can in the future but never nominate any now.
10
Obstruct and divide ... you mean how the ACA (which has directly cost me thousands of extra dollars per year) was passed? I also missed the "resounding" re-election.
2
Just so, Smallwood. The American people voted Barrack Obama into office twice precisely because we trust his judgement. Seems like McConnell is telling the American people that he doesn't trust our judgement.
6
Mitch McConnell, architect of this anti-Constitutional act of refusing to consider the duly, constitutionally-mandated nomination of Judge Garland seems to think that "shall" means different things in that sacred national document.
For instance, he seems to believe that, in the case of a sitting President presenting the Senate with a Supreme Court nominee, the use of the term "Shall" means shan't. The exact verbiage of the Constitution of the United States in this case?
To wit:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
[The President] SHALL nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, SHALL appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
Tell me how, if this "shall" actually means "shan't", under what authority did the Senate act when it sought to impeach President Clinton.
This is what the Constitution states:
The Senate“…SHALL have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…”
Shall means WILL here and above, or it is completely meaningless.
“Shall” must be very important since it 192 times in the Constitution of the United States.
For instance, he seems to believe that, in the case of a sitting President presenting the Senate with a Supreme Court nominee, the use of the term "Shall" means shan't. The exact verbiage of the Constitution of the United States in this case?
To wit:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
[The President] SHALL nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, SHALL appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
Tell me how, if this "shall" actually means "shan't", under what authority did the Senate act when it sought to impeach President Clinton.
This is what the Constitution states:
The Senate“…SHALL have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…”
Shall means WILL here and above, or it is completely meaningless.
“Shall” must be very important since it 192 times in the Constitution of the United States.
97
"With the advice and consent of the senate". Clause 2 doesn't mean the Senate's consent is mandatory. The senate has already "advised" the president to wait until the people have spoken this fall. You may not like that advice, the NYT may not like the advice and the president may not like the advice, but it is still advice.
1
Unlike Bork, Garland has not committed any glaring unethical behavior like Bork did under Nixon. As a last minute Attorney General, he fired lead Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox when two other Attorney Generals (appointed by Nixon) considered this extremely unethical behavior. So Bork, steps ups and axes him and is basically assured a supreme court nomination for this "loyalty". So really, the outrage over the Bork nomination was totally justified. Justice Garland does not bear this mark on his history. His only crime is who is nominating him. This is nothing like the Bork nomination.
377
That must be why Bork was unanimously approved for his D.C. Circuit Court seat in 1982 by Democrats and Republicans. Apparently, the Democrats only remembered his Watergate role afterwards, right?
1
@CHM: The Democrats are sometimes baffling, as well ...
2
Republicans don't remember that both Democrats and some Republicans voted against Bork for the SCOTUS. Or that he was voted on by the entire Senate--a Senate, I might add, where the Senators actually showed up and did some work.
5
Using the Republicans' argument that President Obama should not have his Supreme Court nominee considered because this is his final year in office (albeit this is only March), should the senators who are in the final year of their terms be allowed to vote -- on anything? Maybe they will be re-elected, maybe not, but why should we take the chance?
1242
That would include, of course, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida), who is not running for re-election.
14
But Senator Rubio doesn't usually take the trouble to vote in any case.
15
Janice, you are brilliant.
4
Our President, the finest in many years, nominated a man just like himself:
dignified, thoughtful, principled, open-minded, inclusive, patient, persistent, courageous, solemn, a lover of life and believer in equality.
We will miss him when he leaves. Should the Republican led US Senate do its job, however, I believe we will have a new Supreme Court Justice in his own image:
dignified, thoughtful, principled, open-minded, inclusive, patient, persistent, courageous, solemn, a lover of life and believer in equality.
May our President prevail.
dignified, thoughtful, principled, open-minded, inclusive, patient, persistent, courageous, solemn, a lover of life and believer in equality.
We will miss him when he leaves. Should the Republican led US Senate do its job, however, I believe we will have a new Supreme Court Justice in his own image:
dignified, thoughtful, principled, open-minded, inclusive, patient, persistent, courageous, solemn, a lover of life and believer in equality.
May our President prevail.
439
That's what they're afraid of.
32
He has been a class act. The Republican party will not go down in history in a good way.
1
McConnell and the Republicans likely feel entitled to the rock solid vote Scalia gave them over the years, and the only nominee they will support is one who will clearly provides the same. By "next President" McConnell most likely means the next "Republican" President. In his mind it may even mean the "next Republican President after Trump."
Or perhaps this is being overthought -- perhaps McConnell is channeling the next Republican Presidential nominee Trump, and simply enjoying reacting with hostility to anything the President proposes at this point.