That link was broken.
To address your earlier comment, you could say that Biden didn’t say the Senate should refuse to confirm anyone (like schumer seemed to in the footage I’ve seen, but certainly I’m still open to seeing some larger clip that suggests otherwise).
But his hypocrisy still stands though, right? In that, according to Biden in 92, Obama shouldn’t appoint anyone. If he does, it should at least be a moderate and work with Congress on the issue.
But i don’t think that the clarification of how the president should act really just erases the first part where he suggests that the president really shouldn’t make an appointment at all.
Just to clear here, pointing out this hypocrisy does not in any way justify anyone’s actions. Hell, McConnell is a total hypocrite too, as he had previously said that it was obscene for the Senate to refuse confirmations and prevent the court from doing its super important work.
But i just can’t ignore the hypocrisy on one side.
Fixed the link.
As for Schumer’s statement the larger clip does add some more too it, basically emphasizing how it was not opposition to any appointment, but rather how Bush had shown a pattern with his nominations that he would not support
I am not a fan of this, obvious, hot air political theater. Neither Biden, nor Schumer, in action had ever presented that kind of obstruction. So their statements basically boil down to ‘we could do this thing if we really need to, but would rather not. So we are giving this warning to ensure you work with us instead of railroading us’. I dislike that approach, as now we have a group that has taken the implicit threat and made it actual. There is a difference in what Biden and Schumer did and what the Senate GOP is doing, and it is critical to understand this difference. This does not excuse empty words towards obstruction, mind, but to pretend they are of equal problems is disingenuous.
As for Obama choosing a moderate? That would be fair. We do have a divided executive and legislative. If you want a strong conservative or liberal have both branches. If there was any possibility the Senate GOP would do their damn job, it’d be the right move to nominate a moderate. But given the GOP has translated those words of obstruction into action there is little point in trying to work with them. You can’t work with someone whose express goal is working against you no matter what, and for any reason.
And even what Biden said didn’t say they shouldn’t be held, he had this bit in there “until after the political campaign season is over”, meaning he thought they should wait until after the election in November to hold the hearings. I think it was a wrong position to take, but still doesn’t come close to what the Republicans are saying, nor what they accuse him of.
But given the GOP has translated those words of obstruction into action there is little point in trying to work with them. You can’t work with someone whose express goal is working against you no matter what, and for any reason.
Just to be clear, because maybe i missed some recent action, all that had happened is that McConnell SAID they believed the next justice should be picked by the next president, right? It hasn’t gone beyond talk at this point, right? Obama hasn’t even named a pick yet, has he?
“I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everyone in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president who the people elect in the election that is underway right now,” McConnell said.
“In short, there will not be action taken,” he said.
Compare and contrast:
The political dynamics in 1992 were much different than today. Biden was worried that Bush would try to paint the Senate as obstructionist for campaign purposes, by intentionally sending them an unacceptable candidate. His position amounts to “Send us someone we can confirm, like Souter or Kennedy. If you send us a Bork, we will wait until after the election to start our hearings because we are afraid we might end up looking bad.” Today, in contrast, obstructionism is seen as a virtue.
Note that hearings typically took about a month, so even if they started in November they would still have time to conclude before inauguration.
Totally the same thing, magnet!!
Political bluster has always and will always exist. It’s taking the next step and actually gumming everything up that’s the line that shouldn’t be crossed.
I agree that Biden’s statement is different especially if you focus on a different part of the speech. Although, i would continue to assert that the first section of his speech where he says the president shouldn’t nominate justices during these political season, is still hypocritical (if he were to support Obama doing just that).
Schumer’s statement seems really damn close though, doesn’t it? Saying that they shouldn’t confirm any more Bush appointees at all except in extraordinary circumstances?
I’m terms of political bluster, that’s all McConnell had actually done so far, right?
And to be clear, i absolutely agree that it’s bullshit. None of the citations of hypocrisy at all justifies McConnell’s actions in even the smallest way.
True, which is why I said upstream if he sticks to his guns. McConnell last year said he wanted all judicial confirmations to stop, not just the Supreme Court.
And to be clear, i absolutely agree that it’s bullshit. None of the citations of hypocrisy at all justifies McConnell’s actions in even the smallest way.
When you’re old enough and paid attention long enough you notice this bullshit. Frist whined about the Dems abusing the filibuster early last decade, then the GOP exploded its use when Obama took office. The Dems defended its use, though had previously whined in the 90s about the GOP using it. What’s interesting is that such tactics have been tracking fairly well with the increasing partisan rancor as majority/minority statuses flip, each party ratcheting up the assholery compared to their previous turn as minority party.
I’m just waiting for someone one to whip out a cane and start beating the shit out of someone else in the chamber. We haven’t had that happen in a while.
True, which is why I said upstream if he sticks to his guns.
Ah, OK. See, the fact that it’s just been talk so far is why i said that they were equivalent now.
I would agree that if they actually refuse to vote on a justice for nearly a year, that is something different.
What’s interesting is that such tactics have been tracking fairly well with the increasing partisan rancor as majority/minority statuses flip, each party ratcheting up the assholery compared to their previous turn as minority party.
This is exactly why I reject the partisan bullshit so much. Because it leads to exactly this. Everything becomes a fight, where winning means the other guy needs to lose. Which means there is no way forward, unless one party gets a super majority and just forces everything without even caring about the other part, which just breeds further resentment.
Yes, if this is nothing more than bluster than it is no worse.
However the behavior of the Republican party during Obama’s presidency suggest this will not be the case. They translate obstructionist words into action far too frequently, especially when it comes to appointments.
I agree with you, yet … I remember a time when Democrats and Republicans cooperated more, and moved things forward together. And I remember the constant complaint: “Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable in practice, there is no point to voting for one over the other.”
Be careful what you wish for? Sometimes I wonder whether the winner-take-all parliamentary democracies understand something that we don’t. Elections should have consequences.
McConnell can’t not follow through with it. To do so would be giving in and about the only thing worse he could do in the eyes of Republicans is give Obama a hug.
They won’t hold hearings. They sat in a room today and had all of the committee members sign a goddamned letter promising they won’t hold hearings.
I guess it’s the ultimate fulfillment of McConnell’s vow to treat this president as illegitimate.
They seem to think it’s the right political play. Giving hearings will introduce the public to a (probably quite reasonable and qualified) candidate, so if they just plug up the works it’ll all go away, or motivate their base, or something. I don’t know.
I hope to god it bites them in the ass, the senate flips in November, and Clinton throws them a big fuck you by nominating someone roughly to the left of Ginsburg.
That’s disgraceful, to refuse to hold hearings no matter who would be nominated.
It seems like Obama should absolutely nominate someone, especially if it’s a candidate who seems very well accepted already.
They just think black presidents get 3/5 a term.
How exactly is this constitutional? The words are “with the advice and consent of the Senate”. To me, this means that the Senate engages to provide said advice and consent (or no consent). Does the refusal to even provide advice constitute some type of advice? But how does a body categorically provide that kind of supposed advice before there’s even a nominee? If there is a nominee, won’t they just be refusing to do their job ? (which wouldn’t be anything new lately).
I’m figuring that the writers of the constitution didn’t envision “election years”. They certainly didn’t envision the pathetic circus that we have today. I know, I’m probably missing some historical precedent, and I know politics has always been nasty, but I’m living in this time, now.
The President’s term is the President’s term… he/she can sign a bill / veto a bill / pardon someone etc up to their last day in office. So it is with nominating a justice. Obama’s been elected for a 4-year term, not a 3.5 year term. He does his job until the last day, same as anyone. The Senate should do theirs.
Biden’s 1992 remarks notwithstanding. There wasn’t a real issue then, but if I had been paying attention back then I would have disagreed with him too on principle.
You win. This is gold.