Elizabeth Warren Humiliates Mitch McConnell For Threat To Block Obama SCOTUS Nominee

[babylonsister]

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/14/elizabeth-warren-reminds-mcconnell-pres-obama-won-million-votes.html


Elizabeth Warren Humiliates Mitch McConnell For Threat To Block Obama SCOTUS Nominee

By Sarah Jones on Sun, Feb 14th, 2016

Senator Warren said in a statement, "Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did - when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes."

After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would lead Republicans in obstructing President Obama yet again, this time by leading his party to abdicate their Constitutional duties, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) reminded McConnell that President Obama’s will is the will of the people and that he won by five million votes.

Then Warren proceeded to remind McConnell about that thing Republicans are always claiming to worship – the Constitution, specifically Article II, “Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

Wait for it… “I can’t find a clause that says ‘…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.'”

snip//

The next time a Republican waves their pocket version of the Constitution around as they drone on about the debt as an excuse for why they have not shown up to work for weeks, someone ought to remind them that they can’t pick and choose what works for them from the Constitution like they do from the Bible.

[underpants]

1. Awesome

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

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

"he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"


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

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

[pandr32]

3. Excellent! Thanks for posting this!

[underpants]

5. +

DU thread here

[yuiyoshida]

71. love me some

Elizabeth Warren.

[Hortensis]

80. So, game on! First up, Elizabeth Warren.

Here's a very interesting article from Scotusblog about how this may play out, including a prediction that President Obama will focus on a black nominee. After all, Justice Thurgood Marshall was never replaced on the court, the claim by some that Clarence Thomas is his replacement a profound insult.

BTW, turns out this confirmation fight could also benefit, or potentially hurt, Ted Cruz a great deal in the election.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/#more-238336

[yuiyoshida]

82. like ruling that he is a

Canadian citizen and not American? Wouldn't it be great if he was escorted to the border??

[Hortensis]

89. Funny picture. By a phalanx of big federal marshals.

[SusanaMontana41]

57. Thanks for sharing this!

[napi21]

2. HERE, HERE! Senator Warren!

You KNOW McChinless won't even acknowledge her statement,, MAYBE the PEOPLE WILL!

[rosesaylavee]

4. I love her and am so grateful she's a voice that is heard and respected in our crazy world.

[avaistheone1]

18. Oh yes!

I adore her.

[Jester Messiah]

6. Brutal!

I love it!

[stonecutter357]

7. K&R!

[valerief]

8. That's my senator!

[CrispyQ]

9. Was it Ivins or Richards who said,

Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule.

They are the most hypocritical bunch of spoiled brats I've ever seen.

[harun]

46. +1

[SusanaMontana41]

58. +2

[malaise]

10. KABOOM!!

Perfect

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. I wish she would run for president, but

then I'd be losing my senator.

[ChiciB1]

43. I Feel Elizabeth Warren Is Needed In The Senate Now More Than Ever! n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

49. Correct.

My sentiments exactly. She's a tenacious fighter.

[NorthCarolina]

12. With Bernie in the WH and Warren in the Senate,

hopefully as Senate Majority Leader, things are going to get very interesting.

[slipslidingaway]

79. Part of the revolution, it would be awesome! nt

[Rose77]

13. She is just the best - fearless light for justice

[Enthusiast]

14. Kicked and recommended!

Nothing is more satisfying than the humiliation of Mitch McConnell.

[Omaha Steve]

15. Donate to DU for Elizabeth Warren MA US Senate here

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforwarren-ma

[21st Century Poet]

16. Sorry, but I see no humiliation.

Elizabeth Warren is right that President Obama has a mandate to appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court but the Republicans are right in saying that there is no obligation for the Senate to accept the appointment.

The President has a right to appoint a Supreme Court Judge.

The Senate has a right to reject the appointment.

It's right there in what Elizabeth Warren herself said: "With the advice and consent of the Senate".

What the Republicans are saying is not unconstitutional. The Senate has a right to refuse the appointment. Whether it is morally the right thing to do to leave Scalia's seat vacant for almost a year is another matter altogether.

Let's face it. Had the situation been the other way round with a Republican President in his last year trying to appoint a Judge to the Supreme Court, a Senate with a Democratic majority would also resist it.

You see, this is the problem with American politics today. You have a president and senate majority from opposing parties and the chasms between them are so wide that it is surprising that anything ever gets done. America either needs a president and Senate majority from the same party or more bipartisanship for stuff to work.

[vkkv]

19. Please give us a solid example.

Educate us with a bit of history please.

You wrote """Let's face it. Had the situation been the other way round with a Republican President in his last year trying to appoint a Judge to the Supreme Court, a Senate with a Democratic majority would also resist it. """"

[21st Century Poet]

31. Here is your solid example:

1960 was an election year. The Democrats in the Senate tried to pass a resolution stopping the President from making any recess nominations to the Supreme Court to try and stop Dwight Eisenhower from doing what Barack Obama will try to do now.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

[vkkv]

37. Obama never said that he would be attempting a recess appointment.

[21st Century Poet]

39. I never said that he did (although he still might)

And that's not the point anyway. The point was playing at delaying tactics.

The intended result is the same. The idea was to try and delay the President from appointing someone so that a President from their own political party could get to appoint the new Supreme Court Judge.

[vkkv]

40. Um, that's not a "solid example" - that is a maybe, perhaps, might want to...

[21st Century Poet]

44. Why isn't it solid?

Democrats tried to stop the President from appointing a Judge to the Supreme Court because it was an election year.

No maybes, buts or perhaps. It is a very clear case. If you think that, just a few months away from an election, Democrats would just roll over and let a Republican President appoint a Scalia 2.0 without putting up a fight, you are very naive.

[spooky3]

63. It's a very different thing to point out legitimately objectionable aspects in a nominee's resume

(e.g., where a nominee is extreme or his/her decisions are frequently overturned) versus tell the President in advance that he should not do his Constitutional job or that you will oppose or filibuster ANY nomination. The latter is not appropriate and is inconsistent with the "advise and consent" role of the Senate described in the Constitution.

And I think you know that.

Please provide a citation to any time in the last 50 years in which the Democrats have done the latter.

[SusanaMontana41]

98. Uh, the Democrats put it to a VOTE. Republicans won't even do that. HUGE difference.

I fail to see in the Constitution the right of the Senate NOT to vote on a nominee.

How can it fulfill its constitutional mandate to advise and consent without a nominee to "consent" to?

[NewJeffCT]

85. A resolution is not binding

and, the resolution did not pass.

[Wibly]

32. I'd like clarification too

Just where in history did the Dems ever resist a SCOTUS nominee in the last year of a Presidency?
Where is the precedent to qualify your claim?
The last judge to be appointed in the last year of a Presidency was Kennedy. Reagan nominated him, he was vetted in the usual manner, and appointed. There was no Dem act to resist.
How can you make such a claim with absolutely nothing to back it up but the assumption that the Dems would act in the same childish and unconstitutional manner as the GOP so frequently does.

[21st Century Poet]

35. You are not well informed.

In 1960, the Democrats in the Senate tried to pass a resolution stopping the President from appointing a Supreme Court Judge during recess precisely because it was an election year.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

[spooky3]

64. What is it about "during recess" that you don't understand?

Obama is not planning to make a recess appointment, and what the Republicans are objecting to is much broader than a recess appointment attempt. And there are far more limits on recess appointments today than in 2014 anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0

[oberliner]

50. You really have no idea what you are talking about

Is the name Robert Bork not familiar to you?

That's actually the person that Reagan nominated for the open spot.

The Democrats vowed they would vote him (or any other conservative named by Reagan) down.

As soon as he was nominated, prominent Democrats (led by Ted Kennedy) railed against him in the most strident of terms (justifiably so, in my opinion).

A famous quote from that nomination battle.

"We will fight it all the way - until hell freezes over, and then we'll skate across on the ice" - Benjamin Hooks

In 1987, Senator Biden wrote a scathing report assailing Bork's judicial record. Here's an article about it from the time:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/04/us/report-assails-bork-s-record-on-constitutional-questions.html

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 to reject his nomination.

The full Senate rejected him by a vote of 58-42 with every Democrat but two voting no.

People even started using the expression "Borking" to mean killing someone politically.

[spooky3]

65. They found Bork as an individual nominee objectionable on the basis of his record. That is

completely different from objecting to the process of nominating anyone at a given time, and completely different from objecting to ANY nominee even before she or he is named. The latter is what the Republicans are now doing.

But I think you know that.

[oberliner]

66. I was referring to this comment:

"The last judge to be appointed in the last year of a Presidency was Kennedy. Reagan nominated him, he was vetted in the usual manner, and appointed. There was no Dem act to resist. "

That is not at all what happened. There was a massive resistance to Reagan's initial choice. Kennedy would never have been put forward as an option had it not been for that resistance to (and ultimate rejection of) Bork.

Now that is definitely not the same as refusing to even vote on a nominee, but not every Republican is saying that. And those that do will find themselves with no choice when Obama does make his nomination.

[spooky3]

69. Thanks for the clarification. But if I am understanding your last pgh,

those who want to refuse "to even vote" may have an opportunity to do that if the Republican committee chair refuses to bring the nominee to the floor.

I agree with you if the earlier poster was meaning "act to resist" as objecting to Kennedy on the basis of his record or carefully scrutinizing his background. Is there any evidence that they, as a concerted group, objected IN ADVANCE of the nomination, simply on the basis of timing?

There is a big difference between Dems' (or Repubs') objection to the record OF A SPECIFIC NOMINEE (such as Kennedy) versus stating before anyone has even been nominated either that the President should not put forward a nominee simply because of timing, OR that they will filibuster or vote against someone who has not even been nominated. That is not "advise and consent."

Per Wikipedia:

"When his nomination was voted upon, Kennedy received bipartisan support. Maureen Hoch of PBS has written that he "virtually sailed through the confirmation process and was widely viewed by conservatives and liberals alike as balanced and fair".[18] The United States Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0.[17] Kennedy received his commission on February 11, 1988."

[oberliner]

74. What I meant by the last paragraph

Was that some, but not all, Republicans have made this threat about how they do not even think Obama ought to nominate someone.
The point being: too bad for them because he will and has every right to do so. I could be wrong, but I think that if Obama picks someone with broad potential support (like Justice Kennedy) then the Republicans will back down and allow for a vote to take place. If he nominates someone more contentious, then I think it might be a different story.

I wonder: do you remember the Bork hearings? I do. The Democrats at the time did threaten to vote down any Conservative nominee that Reagan put up - and were particularly angered that he would choose someone as egregious as Bork. The fight was intense and the result was that Bork was voted down.

Kennedy was only nominated after Reagan realized that he needed to choose someone more moderate or else he would not be able to get anyone confirmed - thus, the easy confirmation process.

But I think it is important to remember that easy confirmation process came after a very contentious that resulted in Reagan's preferred choice being denied (and quite rightfully so).

[spooky3]

75. Thanks, but I think you're moving the goalposts.

Maybe not--maybe it's just a miscommunication issue. In any case, I don't see any parallel between the objections to Bork on the basis of his record and what is happening today, for the reasons I already stated.

[oberliner]

77. Fair enough

I think it's miscommunication as I am no longer sure I understand what point I am making anymore either!

Really - I just wanted to respond to the poster who may not have remembered that there was more to the Kennedy nomination than a quick and easy process - that it was preceded by (and a result of) the ugliness with Bork.

[SusanaMontana41]

90. I think it's miscommunication as I am no longer sure I understand what point I am making either!

Great discussion, guys.

[oberliner]

91. Thanks

Sometimes laughing at oneself is the only way to go!

[SusanaMontana41]

92. Totally!

Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously.

Thanks for the yuks!

[NewJeffCT]

86. Bork was nominated

in the middle of 1987, which is a year and a half before Reagan's successor would have taken office.

Bork was also not filibustered - he was given an up or down vote.

[Duppers]

20. Just refuse the nominee?

It seems they are saying that Obama does not have the right to even appoint anyone, let alone for them to wait to see who that nominee would be.

They don't want the process to even begin.

[tkmorris]

22. But, the Senate is not offering "advice and consent"

The Senate is saying that they refuse to consider any appointment whatsoever from this President. This is a consequence of creating a political environment in which, in order to cultivate support from your constituents, it becomes more important to rail against anything the opposite party does rather than do what is necessary for the good of the country.

It would appear to me that this dig in your heels approach to political leadership is one that infects the Republican side more so than the Democratic one. Their attempts to demonize Democrats through their rhetoric have painted them into a corner which prohibits appearing to work with them in any fashion whatsoever. My only hope is that this attitude they display is more for appearances sake and that in the end they will find it expedient to let a nomination proceed. Of course, it would be done over the very public vocal objections of most of the party leadership so as not to appear hypocritical to their base, but it could get done anyway.

The risk they run by NOT permitting a nomination a path forward is potentially alienating the Independent middle, who would likely view such long term obstructionism as overly partisan. This could be extremely costly leading into such an important election cycle. Don't expect them to admit that publicly, but they are abundantly aware of it.

[21st Century Poet]

33. I blame the information age.

For all the good that it has brought us, I somewhat blame the information age for such political intransigence. Before, Washington was far away and politicians could reach a backroom deal which would almost go unnoticed by one's constituents, and papered over over in some fashion when it is.

Now, everything is available online just a few minutes after it happens. Constituents quickly pick up on it, kick up a fuss and threaten a politician's career. Things are now much harder to to gloss over. This is absolutely great for transparency in politics but it makes give-and-take bipartisanship nearly impossible.

Add to that the spotlight put on politicians in an election year and consensus on anything becomes an even bigger headache.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Only because Republicans are incapable of shame.

And there is a difference between rejecting a particular individual appointment, and preemptively stating that you will not allow any possible nominee to even come up for discussion, when you don't even know who that nominee will be.

But then, Republicans also think that Jesus taught that hypocrites are absolutely awesome.

[vkkv]

17. Republican lawmakers all think that Americans are simply TOO DUMB to notice.

That is why Bernie is doing so well.

Americans are not as dumbed-down as the GOP and Fox News would like to think.

E. Warren for SCOTUS !!!!!!

[Duppers]

23. Except for the red states.

They are LIVs (Low Information Voters = dumb).

I agree: Elizabeth Warren for SCOTUS !!

[CTyankee]

88. I wish Obama would but I think he's going to try for a moderate in the hopes of

appealing to some of the less crazy republicans in the Senate...constitutional crisis and all that...but I don't hold out very much hope in either way...

[kiri]

21. nominate Ted Cruz to replace Scalia

Obama should nominate Ted Cruz. Cruz would love to be a SC justice and is vain enough to accept the nomination. But it will cause consternation, commotion, and confusion.

Not to mention that Mitch McConnell and the Senate will be flummoxed.

There is no risk that Cruz will be confirmed--Dems have the filibuster for SC nominees.

It will be hysterically funny.
Cruz for SCOTUS is my motto.

[Duppers]

25. Lol. Good one.

The Donald might sue, however.

[21st Century Poet]

41. A hilarious proposal.

That would be very funny but I doubt Ted Cruz would take the bait.

Thank you for the laugh.

[Flaxbee]

53. Actually (and I"m not really kidding) - bring Souter out of retirement

Appointed by HW Bush, yet an independent and progressive thinker.

If the Republicans are going to throw a baby snit (well, they've already started), bring Souter back for a few years ...

[LynnTTT]

83. Not a joke

That would be making a joke out of a vary serious process

[kristopher]

24. I'm so sorry to disagree withsuch a fine post (but it's just the last part)

"they can’t pick and choose what works for them from the Constitution like they do from the Bible"

Actually that is exactly what the legacy of Scalia and his "Originalist" doctrine has accomplished. By completely disregarding every piece of interpretive legislation and writing (other than the very limited Federalist Papers) Scalia has set up a framework to insert whatever interpretation of the Constitution fits the whims of his acolytes.

May he burn in hell.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

30. Ignoring 213 years of precedent.

"Originalists" are what they called "Strict constructionists" back in the Watergate era.

Marbury v. Madison established the concept of "judicial review". That is the concept that case law opinions as decided by the appellate courts override and annul statute law, should the court of final review's opinion do so.

Judicial review has been the law of the land since 1803.

Basically, people like Scalia are admitting they wish only white males owning real property could vote, slavery was legal, and all those things that have been abolished through constitutional amendments and case law decisions.

[Initech]

26. I want to see Elizabeth Warren as president some day.

[shanti]

29. absolutely!

a sanders/warren ticket would be awesome.

[ThreeWayFanny]

73. Ummmm, Warren/Sanders eom

[randys1]

27. This would shame a decent human being, but McConnell is a republican.

[question everything]

28. "We are all Trump now"

Or something like that.

Trump says what he wants, even claiming to get away with shooting someone, and people love him and his numbers rise.

Thus, paying any attention to reason or to such "ancient" document as the constitution - who cares?

As Cheney said: So??

[4bernie28]

34. Cool

Cool

[gademocrat7]

36. K&R!

[lapfog_1]

38. As this primary season grinds on

I often wish that Hillary had decided to stay retired and on the speaking tour circuit.

That might have allowed for Elizabeth Warren to run for President... and Bernie Sanders would have stayed in the Senate.

And the whole mess of this primary season could have been avoided.

not saying for sure that it would have gone that way... but I think its probable.

[spanone]

42. K&R...

[AikenYankee]

45. You tell them Elizabeth!!

[awoke_in_2003]

48. Ouch

Right on

[yellowcanine]

51. If he had a chin to quiver that would have made it quiver.

Well done Senator Warren. Please proceed, Senator McConnell.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. The gop's pocket version of the constitution is editable at anytime they are losing.

[mike dub]

54. "In fact, they did - when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes."

I said the same thing to my wife this morning after hearing turtle mcconnell's quote, but before reading any other news or opinion. I'm happy that I was thinking along the same lines as Elizabeth Warren!

[pdsimdars]

55. How about a Warren nomination?

What about nominating Warren? She seems to understand what the Constitution says more than any of the Right Wing-nuts on the court.

[oberliner]

61. How many Republicans do you think will vote to confirm her?

There would need to be at least 5.

[pdsimdars]

96. appoint in the hard break

That is, in recess. At the end of the year, after the election, they have to gavel out, not just for a break but because that congress is over. They don't restart for a week or so and he can make any appointment he wants.
I think he could give them one option now and threaten to nominate a FAR left justice during recess.

[oberliner]

97. Republicans can prevent that

Pro-forma sessions = no official recess.

[curiouso]

56. Since when...?

You're suggesting that Mitch McConnell or any other conservative politician is capable shame, embarrassment or humiliation?
Don't make me laugh, my lips are chapped.
G.O.P. spells hypocrisy and they're damned proud of it...

[myrna minx]

59. K&K

[madville]

60. The Constitution doesn't specify

that the Senate must confirm the President's nomination or even how to go about it, it does blatantly give them the authority to block/deny it.

The way they are doing it is shameful but it's well within their authority.

I don't really get this argument, it's basically "The Republicans have no right to deny the President's nomination because the Constitution specifically gives them the right to deny his nominee"??????? Huh?

[FSogol]

62. K&R. n/t

[blackspade]

67. Oh, Snap!

Cackle

[red dog 1]

68. Kick!!!

If Bernie Sanders does become the Democratic nominee, I hope to God he asks Senator Warren to be his running mate.

[L. Coyote]

70. Yeah, yeah, yeah, when monkeys fly they'll rewrite the Constitution, etc. etc. ...

March 17, 2014
The Supreme Court Farm Team
By Jeffrey Toobin

Not so suddenly, there’s an elderly quartet at the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg just turned eighty-one, and she’s followed closely in age by Antonin Scalia, seventy-eight; Anthony Kennedy, seventy-seven; and Stephen Breyer, seventy-five. None of these Justices has signalled a desire to leave the Court anytime soon, but time catches up with everyone.

If President Obama has another chance to fill another vacancy (or more) on the Court, he will be in a very different position than he was when he nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in the first and second years of his Presidency. Presidents generally pick Justices who were appointed to the federal appellate courts by Presidents of their own party; given enough time, they can pick federal judges whom they appointed themselves. Now, unlike in 2009 and 2010, Obama has his own farm team of appellate judges. According to Obama Administration insiders (and knowledgeable outsiders), here is a preliminary list of possibilities. ............

[mythology]

72. Sadly, McConnell isn't capable of feeling humiliation

It requires things McConnell lacks like integrity and dignity.

[iandhr]

76. I love Liz Warren.

And I agree with her 100% Butntonbe clear there is nothing that can humliate these people

[Gothmog]

78. The Democrats need to use this issue if the Senate republicans block a qualified candidate

[AgadorSparticus]

81. Just have to love this lady. Why does itseem like she is the only D Sen. To say the right things?

I don't know. Don't we have any other democratic senators? .....worth mentioning? It just seems she is the only one out there fighting the fight.

[dubyadiprecession]

84. Damn straight Elizabeth! We fill supreme court vacancies regardless of who is president..

This is 'The United States of America', not 'The Republican States of America'!

Republicans are making our democracy out to be a living joke to the world!!

[MynameisBlarney]

87. She is truly a national treasure!

Keep fightin' the good fight Senator Warren!

[rladdi]

93. Does Elizabeth Warren understand that Mitch McConnell is to IGNORANT to

understand. His only mission since Obama was sworn in is to DESTROY OBAMA. McConnell doesn't know the first line of the Constitution, his only mission as Senator is to do nothing, blocks or stall bills. But the people of his state just don't get it after decade of voting for him.

[libodem]

94. .

[mdbl]

95. None of those repug morons ever read the constitution

they just make crap up. They are lawbreakers.