Scalia

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
Also, the rest of that "article" is agenda-driven garbage. Are we not astute enough to discern these things?

You mean a politician who doesn't agree with the president's policies doesn't want to see him reelected? The horror!
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
:lol To call a guy out for potentially contradicting something he said 46 years ago is an enormous stretch, even by liberal democrat standards. Holy Shit.
:lol

That was my thought exactly. 46 years ago? I'm sure over 46 years my opinions will change multiple times.
 

Carl

RIP Brother
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,372
Mitch McConnell of 1970 Contradicts Mitch McConnell of 2016 On SCOTUS Confirmations Last Updated on February 15, 2016296


In a move that rather coldly politicized Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky pointed out within barely an hour that he did not believe that a president in his last year should appoint a Supreme Court judge.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Notwithstanding the fact that the American people would have a voice in Obama’s nomination through their right to vote since they voted for Obama and he still has 11 months of the term he was elected for to go, McConnell’s words are proving to be problematic in other ways.


First, it was widely reported shortly after that statement that McConnell confirmed the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1988, which just happened to be the final year of a president’s term. That president, however, was Ronald Reagan, Republican hero. That one was fairly simple to find, and one wonders whether or not Mitch McConnell has ever heard of Google.

Now, an article published by Kentucky Law Journal has also emerged from their 1970-71 issue, written by a much younger Mitchell A. McConnell.

“What standard then can be drawn for the Senate from the experiences of the past year in advising and consenting to Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court? They have been set out above but should be reiterated in conclusion. At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate…

The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy.”

So while 1970s Mitch McConnell found it a “perfectly legitimate part” of a president’s job to steer the Supreme Court in a particular ideological direction until that president was Barack Obama. Suddenly, McConnell’s entire philosophy around the responsibilities of the president have changed. Suddenly, McConnell is concerned for “voters.”

This is unsurprising considering that Mitch McConnell is the same man who said that his first priority was to make a newly-elected President Obama a “one-term president.” The book “The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era,” written by the award-winning author Michael Grunwald, revealed in 2008, McConnell led private meetings with other Republican political leaders and along with Eric Cantor initiated a strategy in which Republicans agreed to simply block everything Obama tried to pass.

“[McConnell and Cantor in 2009] laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. ‘If he was for it,’ former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, ‘we had to be against it.’”

McConnell seems to be absolutely stuck on that strategy, despite the fact that he failed at his mission to keep President Obama from serving a second term. Perhaps now, it’s time for McConnell to accept that voters elected president Obama to do a job, and we meant for him to do that job throughout his entire two terms.
I think it's called expediency.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
:lol To call a guy out for potentially contradicting something he said 46 years ago is an enormous stretch, even by liberal democrat standards. Holy Shit.
He didn't just say it 46 years ago he wrote that for a law journal.

And he used the same argument when Kennedy was appointed by Reagan under the same instances as he is railing against now.

So yeah it is still relevant.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I suspect that either party would be doing the same thing the other was, if the situation was reversed. No sense pointing out hypocrisy among politicians, it's practically in the job description.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
I suspect that either party would be doing the same thing the other was, if the situation was reversed. No sense pointing out hypocrisy among politicians, it's practically in the job description.
Exactly. But democrats love to demonize republicans. As if having a different political opinion makes you evil. It's retarded.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
He didn't just say it 46 years ago he wrote that for a law journal.

And he used the same argument when Kennedy was appointed by Reagan under the same instances as he is railing against now.

So yeah it is still relevant.

Nuh uh.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I have no issue with Republicans playing the stall game but for them to act like this is precedent and how dare you go against that is the issue.

Especially McConnell who once believed the elected president should change the court the way he saw fit.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
I have no issue with Republicans playing the stall game but for them to act like this is precedent and how dare you go against that is the issue.

Especially McConnell who once believed the elected president should change the court the way he saw fit.
Fake outrage!!! :pitchfork

Until either side actually does something, this outrage over it is just a bunch of posturing by politicians. Why people gets so upset over it is ridiculous. If Obama selected a conservative justice do you really think the Republicans would deny that candidate simply because Obama nominated that person and the Republicans believe the voters should decide? Of course not. All they really care about is who the President selects for the position.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Everyone who has been paying even a little attention knows that using "nuclear" tactics has become popular with both parties during this administration. Democrats opened up using these tactics in 2013 and now they cry about Republicans being equally ruthless.
 
Top Bottom